The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2023-11-16 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 6:00 PM MINUTES PRESENT Commissioner Patrick Grace Commissioner Enrique Rivera Commissioner Mandi Meyers Commissioner Jared Smith ABSENT Commissioner Nate Wheeler Commissioner Maria Lorcher Commissioner Andrew Seal ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved Motion to approve made by Commissioner Rivera, Seconded by Commissioner Grace. Voting Yea: Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Rivera, Commissioner Meyers, Commissioner Smith 1. Approve Minutes of the November 02, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for Meridian OZ (H-2023-0048) by JD Planning and Consulting, located at 1475 E. Franklin Rd. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0048 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 36 residential units on 2.39 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. Motion to approve made by Commissioner Rivera, Seconded by Commissioner Grace. Voting Yea: Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Rivera, Commissioner Meyers, Commissioner Smith 3. Public Hearing for Chik-Fil-A at Ten Mile (H-2023-0054) by 4G Development and Consulting, Inc., located at 501, 567 and 609 S. Innovation Ln. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0054 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a new approximate 5,872 foot Chik-fil- A restaurant including a dual drive-thru, full fire escape lane, and two exterior drive-thru canopies located within 300 feet of an existing drive-through facility, residential district, and existing residence on approximately 2.36 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Motion to approve made by Commissioner Grace, Seconded by Commissioner Rivera. Voting Yea: Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Rivera, Commissioner Meyers, Commissioner Smith 4. Public Hearing for Crowley Park Subdivision (H-2023-0053) by Riley Planning Services, located at 4135 W. Cherry Ln. Recommended Approval to City Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0053 A. Request: Annexation of 1.002 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Combined Preliminary/Final Plat consisting of 4 residential building lots and 1 common lot (including one existing home to remain). Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Rivera, Seconded by Commissioner Grace. Voting Yea: Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Rivera, Commissioner Meyers, Commissioner Smith ADJOURNMENT 8:35 P.M. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To view upcoming Public Hearing Notices, visit https://apps.meridiancity.org/phnotices --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 16, 2023. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 16, 2023, was called to order at 6:04 p.m. by Commissioner Jared Smith. Members Present: Commissioner Jared Smith, Commissioner Patrick Grace, Commissioner Enrique Rivera and Commissioner Mandi Stoddard. Members Absent: Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Maria Lorcher and Commissioner Nathan Wheeler. Others Present: Chris Johnson, Tina Lomeli, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Stacy Hersh and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Nate Wheeler Maria Lorcher _X Mandi Stoddard X Patrick Grace _X Enrique Rivera X Jared Smith Andrew Seal - Chairman Smith: All right. Good evening. Welcome everyone to the Planning and Zoning meeting for November 16th, 2023. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who are here are present for this meeting's -- this evening's meeting at City Hall and on Zoom. We also have staff from the city attorney and city clerk's office, as well as the city planning department. If you are joining us here on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may observe the meeting. However, your ability to talk and be on screen will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and able to comment. Please note that we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion of the meeting. If you have a process question during the meeting please e-mail cityclerk@meridian.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch the stream on the city's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org/live. With that let's begin with roll call. Madam Clerk. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Smith: All right. Next step is the adoption of the agenda. There are no changes to the agenda tonight. Could I get a motion? Rivera: So moved. Grace: Second. Smith: Point of clarification. That's a motion to adopt I'm assuming. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 2 of 46 Rivera: Yes. Smith: It has been moved and seconded. All in favor please say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Approved 1. Approve Minutes of the November 02, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Smith: Next up is the Consent Agenda. We have one item on the Consent Agenda. Can I get a motion to approve? Rivera: I make the first motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Stoddard: Second. Smith: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor please say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Smith: All right. At this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process and we will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings on how the items adhere to our Comprehensive Plan and our Unified Development Code. After the staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward and present their case and respond to staff's comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called only once during the public testimony. The clerk will call the names individually of those who have signed up on our website and -- and in advance to testify. You will, then, be unmuted on Zoom or you can come to the microphone in Chambers. Please state your name and address for the record. You will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or a presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on the screen and our clerk will run that presentation. If you have established that you are speaking on behalf of an HOA or another group where others from that group will allow you to speak on their behalf, you will have ten -- up to ten minutes. After all of those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite any others who wish to testify. If you wish to speak on the topic you may come forward in Chambers, press the raise hand button if on Zoom, or press star nine and wait for your name to be called on a phone. As a reminder if you are listening on multiple devices, such as a computer or a phone -- or a computer and a phone, please be sure to mute those extra devices so we can hear you clearly without Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 3 of 46 feedback or echoing. When you are finished if the Commission does not have questions for you, you will return to your seat in Chambers or be muted on Zoom and no longer have the ability to speak. Please remember that we will not call you up to be heard a second time. After all testimony has been heard the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant is finished responding to questions and concerns we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have an opportunity to discuss and hopefully make a final decision or recommendation to City Council as needed. ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for Meridian OZ (H-2023-0048) by JD Planning and Consulting, located at 1475 E. Franklin Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 36 residential units on 2.39 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. Smith: With that I would like to open up the first item on the list, H-2023-0048, Meridian OZ. We will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The first application before you tonight is a request for a conditional use permit. This site consists of 2.39 acres of land. It's zoned R-40 and is located at 1475 East Franklin Road at the southwest corner of Franklin and Locust Grove Roads. This property was annexed back in 1999 with a development agreement that entitles the property to develop with multi-family residential apartments at a density of 15.6 units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use community. A conditional use permit is proposed for a multi-family residential development consisting of 36 dwelling units and eight three story structures on 2.39 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. All of the units are proposed to have two bedrooms each. The gross density of the development is 15 units per acre, consistent with that approved in the existing development agreement and with the guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan for the mixed use community designation. Access is proposed via South Locust Grove Road. No access is proposed or allowed via East Franklin Road. Staff recommends a cross-access, an ingress- egress easement and driveway with a pedestrian walkway is provided to the property to the south for future interconnectivity. That property is also designated mixed use community. Staff is also recommending a cross-access ingress-egress easement and driveway is provided to the property to the west for interconnectivity and access via Franklin Road. Off-street parking is proposed in excess of UDC standards. Based on 36 two bedroom units a minimum of 75 parking spaces are required. A total of 76 spaces are proposed. A minimum of 9,000 square feet or .21 acre of common open space is required that meets the UDC standards for such. Of that area at least one common grassy area of at least 5,000 square feet is required to be integrated into the site design allowing for general activities by all ages. An open space exhibit was submitted as shown that depicts approximately twice as much open space as required Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 4 of 46 exceeding UDC standards. A minimum of three site amenities are required to be provided. Enclosed bike storage, a community garden, a pathway and children's playground equipment are proposed in accord with UDC standards. Schematic renderings were submitted as shown for the proposed three story structures. Building materials are anticipated to consist of a mix of stucco, siding and mixed -- mixed metals for accents with neutral color scheme throughout. To provide variation in profile staff is recommending the buildings incorporate modulation. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the architectural standards manual. Written testimony was received from Brad Banks, Intermountain Wood Products and he is in opposition to this development on the basis of traffic concerns at the intersection. A copy of his letter is included in the public record. The applicant did submit written testimony in agreement with the staff report and staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. Smith: Would the applicant like to come forward? Allen: The applicant is online. Delgado: Is everybody able to hear me? Smith: Yes, we can hear you. If you are able to get maybe a little closer to the microphone. Delgado: How about now? Smith: That's great. Delgado: Perfect. Good afternoon -- or good evening. My name is Jorre Delgado. I'm here to discuss and answer any questions that the Commission and staff may have regarding the Meridian OZ Apartments. This proposal is for a new multi-family development consisting of 36 two bedroom units as stated by staff. Previously as you may remember, we were -- we were proposing 65 units, but after discussing this application and reviewing the staff report with City Council they kind of mentioned that this site is better at a lower density to comply with the DA that's in place. So, we took that to heart and we redesigned the site and cut it in half. So, we now comply with the DA that is currently in place for the site and as you can see we have dropped that down to 36 units rather than 60 and we feel that we have created a more livable and more desirable site for tenants and others in the surrounding area. So, with that I will just leave it open for questions from the Commission or staff. Smith: Any Commissioners have any questions? All right. With that we can move to testimony. Do we have anyone signed up? Lomeli: Yes. I have Ann Wetherell here. Smith: If I can get your name and your address, please. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 5 of 46 Wetherell: My name is Ann Wetherell and I live at 215 South Locust Grove Road. I'm one property away from this. It was turned down by City Council last time because -- well, for one thing it was three stories high and it really stuck out like a sore thumb if it were to be built. Still three stories high. Also because we have some right-in and right- out on Locust Grove Road there. So, all of those people -- that generates a lot of traffic. There is already a right-in, right-out housing development right across the street from that. That's a mess. It's hard getting out of my driveway sometimes with cars flipping a Uey to get back into there, so they can get into their homes. So, with that I agree very much with Mr. Banks that it is a traffic hazard. Also the blank area you see there is a collection area for the Five Mile Creek area. It's a wonderful wetland and a drowning hazard for any -- any child. You can -- excuse me -- wire this off any way you want it, but they can still go around the front and get in there. So, it is a drowning hazard for children. With that I will just conclude my testimony by saying that this just doesn't fit the neighborhood at all. It doesn't. It's the businesses behind us. There is a huge warehouse going up next to me and I don't feel like it -- it's a secure place if we are going to have all of these apartments here and I think -- I think that's -- that's it. Thank you for hearing me. Smith: Thank you very much. Grace: Mr. Chairman? Smith: Yes, Commissioner Grace. Grace: I apologize, I do have a question and if it's for staff -- I think anyone could really answer it, but for maybe staff. But if the applicant has to come back up so be it. Can just get a confirmation. There is -- the only ingress and egress through Locust Grove and that there is no -- there is no connection to that north-south street to the west. I don't -- I think it's Adkins maybe or something like that. Can I just get that confirmation about the traffic pattern? Allen: Mr. Chair, if I may respond to that. The only access available to this site is Locust Grove Road. It is a full access that's being proposed. Staff is recommending a cross-access easement and driveway is provided to the property to the west and that would be for -- the thought behind that is for an eventual access to Franklin Road. There is -- I would like to note like -- I think it's a 20 foot wide parcel that's in between this property and the adjacent property to the west. I believe it's owned by the business owners association. There are a lot of trees -- existing mature trees within that area that would need to be removed in the area where the cross-access easement is provided and we would have to have approval from that property owner for that access to be reciprocal and go through. Grace: Okay. Has the applicant explored that at all? Allen: I will let the applicant respond to that. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 6 of 46 Delgado: Yes, we have explored that. We have actually tried to acquire that piece to make -- to make it to where we did have a secondary access. But we have been unable to get in touch with the owners of that skinny little parcel that goes down the side that is full of mature trees. We did speak with the applicant, who it sounds like the application may have been withdrawn next door on that Adkins piece of property, so we actually do have a proposed future access over there, which is kind of our green space up there. We removed some parallel parking spaces so that if that applicant ever did pursue that and the owner of this strip of trees was to ever sell that piece of property or was able to work with us just to acquire that piece of it, we do have the room to add in a secondary access, which we would love to do and we have tried to do, but we have just been unsuccessful with that owner in the middle and we, obviously, can't just rip down their trees. Grace: Yeah. Okay. Thanks so much. Appreciate that. Delgado: Thank you. Smith: Okay. Do we have anyone else signed up to testify? Lomeli: I do believe there is a Lynzey Uechi that's attending via Zoom. Smith: Lynzey, you are on mute if you would like to unmute yourself. Uechi: Hello? Smith: Lynzey, can you -- I don't know if you are speaking. It sounded like you were speaking. But we could not fully hear you. You kind of cut out. Try that again. Uechi: If you can hear me -- if you can hear me I didn't intend to speak tonight. I submitted my comments via e-mail. Smith: Okay. Would you like to speak at this point or -- Uechi- I can't right now. Sorry. Smith: No worries. Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else? Lomeli: No one else is raising their hand for this hearing. Starman: Mr. Chairman, can we just -- I would ask for you to pause just for one moment. If we -- I don't recall -- staff mentioned we had an e-mail. Is that in the record or -- Allen: Mr. Chair, I was told that it came in at 5.40, 1 believe, p.m. today. Smith: Got it. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 7 of 46 Allen: It has not been included in the public record yet due to the lateness of the receipt of the e-mail. Smith: Are we still clear to proceed with that? Starman: I'm just going to think out loud for -- my -- my concern is that -- I guess I have made an offer to Ms. Uechi the opportunity to speak one more time if she wants to. It sounds like she is predisposed and may not be able to, but because we received her e- mail so late in the day we don't have the full benefit of her thoughts. So, I would like to offer to her one more time if she would like to orally offer her thoughts that would be very welcome and we would appreciate that. If she is not -- doesn't want to do that or not able I would -- I understand that as well. So, I'm just going to make that offer. I'm going to pause for ten seconds and see if she is available and, if not, we will press on. Smith: Lynzey, would you like to speak in light of that e-mail not being included in the public record? All right. It seems like we will move on to the next testimony in light of that. Is there anyone else signed up to speak? Lomeli: Not that I'm aware of, no. Smith: Anyone in the chambers would like to come forward and speak? All right. Would the applicant like to come back up -- or rejoin in Zoom. Delgado: Yes. I'm here. Sorry. I'm having difficulties with the microphone on my computer. Sorry about that. Smith: No worries. Delgado: I would just like to make a couple of comments about some of the public -- public testimony. One of them was -- I think she stated that last time we were denied because it was three stories. That was not my understanding. My understanding was that City Council would like us to lower our density and make it more appropriate to fit the area, which we did. We lowered it in half, essentially, and we lowered it to the correct unit per acre for that development agreement. Also with the ACHD drainage facility, we are aware that it's there. We have tried to work with ACHD for multiple things that we would like to do with that area, but, again, it's owned by ACHD and there is only so much that they can let us do with that and it was noted in the staff report that they would like us to have a wrought iron fence around it. So, we are going to be putting up a wrought iron fence and that's -- I mean that's as much as we can do, unless ACHD allows us to do anything further, which we would love to work with them in the future in planning something really creative and safe for the area, but that is going to be at the liberty of ACHD. And, then, as far as the right-in, right-out, again, that goes back to having the secondary access. We would love to have the secondary access, but, again, we need to -- we need to kind of get with that property owner in the middle and see if we were able to acquire just a piece of that property to make that happen, which, again, we would love to do that for now. Safety reasons. We are keeping it as a right- 10 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 8 of 46 in, right-out and it was also noted in the staff report that that's what they would like that to be. So, that is all my comments for the public testimony. Smith: Okay. Do Commissioners have any questions for the applicant or staff? Grace: Mr. Chairman, I just have one question maybe for staff or -- I don't participate usually by Zoom, so I'm not very fluent in -- in this, but I'm trying to --just out of fairness I think you -- you mentioned there was a written comment from a gentleman at the beginning of this hearing and I just want to -- I'm trying to find a link to those public comments in the packet and -- just so I can, you know, click on it and read it. I was preparing this evening and I wasn't able to find that anywhere and just -- just out of fairness to the -- to the public who have submitted comments I would like to read them. I'm just not sure how you access them right now. I know that the last submission was late and it's probably not in the packet, but I think you said there was an earlier one. Smith: Would the staff like to -- Starman: Mr. -- Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Grace -- and I apologize I was having a sidebar with our planning supervisor to -- on that exact same point. So, I think I got the gist of Commissioner Grace's thought and we were probably thinking the same way. So, if I get this wrong I beg your indulgence that I was having a secondary conversation, but we were having a similar thought. I think the city clerk does -- does have the e-mail that was brought up earlier that was received very late in the process. The clerk -- if the city clerk is willing to read that. It's not that lengthy. So, if the Chairman and the Commission is willing to do that we could read that into the record and, then, was a request -- was a request for the second letter as well from the other -- Smith: Yeah. Commissioner Grace, you could even speak, but I think that if -- you correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the gist there was that letter from the gentleman prior to today with the traffic concerns and he is just looking for a link to that -- or for that to be read if there is no link. Starman: Let's -- let's start with my recommendation I guess. Let's start with having the city clerk read the e-mail that came in quite late, like after 5.00 o'clock today. We can get that into the record and the Commission would have the benefit of that citizen's thoughts and concerns and, then, let's pause after that and think about how best to deal with the second letter that was received a little earlier. Smith: Thank you. Mr. Clerk. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the consideration of Commission from Lynzey, the property owner directly south at the proposed development. Please consider the following: Is it possible for the sole entrance and exit to not block the infiltration ditch that moves drainage from my property into the ACHD pond? Is the limited visibility and access to the apartment buildings C-1 and 2 and D-1 and 2 west of the pond safe? The chain link fence north of the property is behind the industrial buffer zone, not on the F-11 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 9 of 46 property line. There is no way to ensure no cross-access onto my property and the other single family property south without a fence going through the buffer zone, which the applicant does not have access to. There is a clear vision triangle on the landscaping plan, which suggests having the authority to utilize a corner of my property. I have never agreed to this restriction. Despite repeated recommendations, the applicant has not -- has not moved the only trash receptacle, nor have they provided the recycling. The trash can remains feet away from my barn. Is placing a playground between a blind corner and a barbed wire fence surrounded pond safe? The only signage for this multi-family development would have to appear before the driveway or it would be on my property. This would further limit visibility to an already unsafe sole entrance-exit. Is it safe to have traffic entering and exiting at one point, which is, A, close to a major intersection and, B, has limited visibility due to the pond and proposed landscaping? With sincere appreciation for your time, Lynzey Uechi. Starman: Thank you, City Clerk. And, Mr. Chairman, now we could about how best to deal with the letters received earlier, so -- I haven't seen that letter. I can look for it real quickly. We could read that if that would be helpful to the Commissioners that are on Zoom or if the request was simply to e-mail a link to Commissioner Grace we can accommodate that as well. So, Commissioner Grace, maybe you would like to tell us your preference. Grace: Mr. Chairman and Kurt, I'm happy to read it. I don't -- I don't need to take the Commission's time and staff time to -- for someone to read it. I just wasn't sure how to access it. I didn't see it in the packet and, you know, again, I just wanted to be respectful of a member of the public who wrote in. Johnson: Mr. Chair? Smith: Mr. Clerk. Johnson: Commissioner Grace, that e-mail is just -- or that link has just been e-mailed to you. Grace: Okay. Smith: So, while we give you just a second to do that, I -- is -- Kurt, a question for you in terms of process, since we kind of went back to public testimony a little bit, would it be fair to give the applicant an opportunity to respond to that specific -- Starman: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I don't -- unless I -- as I say I had a side bar conversation, so I don't think I missed this piece, but I believe the public hearing is still open -- Smith: Yeah. F12 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 10 of 46 Starman: Correct? So, I think we should complete all public testimony that -- there may not be others, but you may want to ask one more time. Once that is done, then, I would recommend, as we would typically do, invite the applicant -- via Zoom in this instance -- to make her closing comments and would encourage her to address some of the concerns that were voiced by the citizens that testified tonight, both in person and by e- mail and by letter. Smith: To be -- just to make sure I'm on the right page, we did -- we didn't -- well, we did not close anything. We already did allow the applicant to come back up and, then, read the e-mail. Would it be kosher to allow them to respond solely to that e-mail, since they have already covered other testimony? Starman: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would recommend that we give the -- the applicant an opportunity to speak again, since we have new information that she was not aware of at the time she made her comments. Smith: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come back up to respond to any of that testimony that was in that read e-mail? Delgado: Yes, I would. Just a couple things that I would like to touch on as one of them. I do know that she had mentioned that our trash -- our trash can was backed up to her property line. We actually have moved that and you can see that in our updated site plan that is currently on your guys' screen. We had moved it to our optional location that we had set aside, because we were unsure of where we wanted to put it. So, we did take that comment from her into consideration and we did move that based on staff's recommendation as well and there is a recycling bin inside of that. So, there will be trash and recycling inside that. And, then, as far as the clear vision triangle, the clear vision triangle -- we are not actually putting anything on her property, it's just a -- a clear vision triangle for us just means we can't plant anything in that -- in that buffer. We are not going to plant a tree that's going to hinder somebody from seeing onto the road. It's just something that ACHD requires and it's something that is code. I mean we never put trees in a clear vision triangle, but I understand the way they are shown on there it kind of looks like we may be putting something on her property, but we aren't putting anything, it's just for us to know and for you guys to see that we don't have any excessively large trees planted in that area. Thank you. Smith: Thank you. I will now take a motion to close the public hearing, unless there are any questions for the applicant from Commissioners. I should have worded that differently. Are there any questions remaining for staff or applicant? All right. Chair would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Rivera: I will make a motion to close the public hearing. Grace: Second. Stoddard: Second. F13 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 11 of 46 Smith: I have a motion and a second. All in favor please say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Smith: All right. Let's see if anyone wants to express any thoughts on this. Grace: Mr. Chairman, I will take a stab at going first here. I just want to -- I want to thank the applicant actually in that last statement, because that was going to be a follow-up question of mine regarding the trash -- the trash dumpster location. So, thank you for clarifying that. I do understand the -- the testimony and concerns and the citizens about the traffic and the -- you know, the increased activity there, but I think as we all know multi-family is sorely needed. It doesn't appear to be a terribly large project. I think it's a good fit for that corner. I would like to see, if possible, some connection, you know, to the -- to the west to that -- to that kind of street that's -- that's not a -- not an arterial street, like Locust is or certainly Franklin. So, I think all in all I like what I saw, I like the -- I like the -- the elevations and the explanation for that and the -- and the fit for that area. So, yeah, I think I will be supporting this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Smith: Thank you, Commissioner Grace. Are there any other -- any other feedback from Commissioners? Any discussion? I guess I will -- I will just echo Commissioner Grace's thoughts. Ideally I would like to see a secondary access point along this road, but we can't, you know, force that property owner to do anything here. So, there is -- there is not much control we have over that other situation. It's really about this -- just this proposal that's in front of us and I agree I think it's on net a good fit and I think the developer has made a lot of efforts to fit the -- fit the feedback before by the Council and, yeah, I think this is -- this is a net good. I agree, multi-family housing is sorely needed. This is a weirdly shaped parcel, but I think all in all things considered this -- this is -- this is a good fit for the -- the time and place. With that, unless there is any other discussion, I would take -- entertain a motion at this point. If no one wants to take a crack at it I can. Grace: I'm trying to find my -- Smith: I believe Commissioner Rivera is going to take a crack at it. Grace: Okay. Rivera: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File No. H-2023-0048 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 16th, 2023, with the -- were there any modifications, was there, on this? Smith: Unless you have any I don't believe -- can I get a second? Grace: Yeah. I will second that, Mr. Chairman. 14 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 12 of 46 Smith: All right. I have a motion and a second. All in favor, please, say aye. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. 3. Public Hearing for Chik-Fil-A at Ten Mile (H-2023-0054) by 4G Development and Consulting, Inc., located at 501, 567 and 609 S. Innovation Ln. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a new approximate 5,872 foot Chik-fil-A restaurant including a dual drive-thru, full fire escape lane, and two exterior drive-thru canopies located within 300 feet of an existing drive-through facility, residential district, and existing residence on approximately 2.36 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Smith: With that I would like to open up the public hearing for Item No. H-2023-0054 for Chik-Fil-A. We will begin with the staff report. Hersh: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. The applicant is here to present their application for a conditional use permit for Chik-Fit-A. The site consists of 2.36 acres of land, currently zoned C-G, located at 602 South Vanguard Way. The history on the property is currently a development agreement, a final plat and a private street application that was approved. The comprehensive FLUM designation is commercial. A conditional use permit request for a new approximately 5,872 square foot Chik-Fit-A, including a drive through, full fire escape lane, two exterior drive-through canopies located within 300 feet of an existing drive-through facility, residential district and existing residents. The proposed drive-through establish -- establishment is subject to the specific use standards in the UDC for the drive-through establishment. All establishments providing drive-through service are required to identify the stacking lane, menu and speaker location if -- if applicable and window location on the site plan. The site plan is also required to demonstrate safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the site and in between adjacent properties. Staff finds that the parking stalls to the north or south should be restricted for employee parking only to maximize pedestrian safety. Additionally, staff recommends that the applicant incorporate a pedestrian walkway from the easternmost parking area through the middle of the parking lot leading to the front of the building to facilitate safe pedestrian access. You can see staff has proposed where that might be located, but that can be up to the applicant as where that fits best on the site. The proposed site layout for the restaurant includes a dual drive-through lane with space to queue 37 vehicles and a third fire escape lane provided on the outside of the entire length of the drive through. The drive through itself starts at the north side of the building and exits at the south side facing south Innovation Lane. However, staff has some safety concerns regarding the entry to the drive through from the north. At the entrance of the drive through vehicles will be entering and exiting the drive through while vehicles are attempting to park or back out of the parking stalls along the northern boundary. Staff recommends that the entry-exit F15 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 13 of 46 on the north should be designated as an entrance only for the drive through to clearly mark and direct traffic flow. Further, staff recommends that the applicant shall install additional signage and parking lot striping to clearly mark and guide traffic safely throughout the site, which they have actually done. Chik-Fil-A operations utilize a drive- through system featuring a door with a built up -- built-in pickup window. Additionally, employees serve customers as food runners within designated areas in and around the drive-through lanes. Customers have multiple options for placing orders in the drive through. They can either use digital menu boards with speakers or directly engage with employees equipped with handheld computer pads and portable receipt printers. Employees are equipped to take all methods of payment in the drive through area. Once the order is placed using one of the above methods, the customer will proceed to move forward in the queue approaching the order pickup area at the drive through. At this point an employee will, then, hand -- or a runner will deliver the customer their order to their vehicle and direct cars safe -- safely through the drive-through exit. Development of the site shall comply with the development standards for the C-G zoning district in the UDC table. Staff has reviewed the proposed plan and building elevations and they comply with the required standards. The property is currently located across multiple property lines. Staff has recommended that the applicant submit a property boundary adjustment to combine all three properties into one prior to submitting for a certificate of zoning compliance. The site includes three access points from South Innovation -- Innovation Lane, a private street located on the eastern side of the property. Vehicles accessing the site can do so from the northeast, east or southeast and have the option to park in the lot in front of the building or proceed northwest to one of the first to enter ten foot drive-through lanes. These lanes are equipped with menu boards, ordering and allowing for exiting back to the drive aisle in a southeast direction. The third lane farthest from the building serves as an escape lane leading to the drive aisle along the south side of the building. Again, to improve traffic flow and minimize confusion staff has recommended that the first entrance at the northeast corner should be an entrance only. While staff recommends approval of all three drive-through lanes for this project to accommodate the volume of business that Chik-Fil-A generates, Commission ultimately has the authority to determine whether it's appropriate for this project. So, parking. A minimum of -- of one -- or a minimum of one off-street parking space is required per 250 square feet gross floor area. Based on the 5,872 square foot restaurant a minimum of 23 parking spaces are required. A total of 96 spaces are proposed exceeding the standards. A minimum of one bicycle space -- parking space must be provided for over 25 vehicle spaces or a portion thereof per the UDC. Biking facility -- facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards. Bicycle parking is shown on the plan submitted with this application that meets the requirement. The applicant has also provided a detail recently of the bicycle racks that they are proposing on the revised landscape plan and that actually does not meet our 34 foot in height requirements. Theirs was 33. Street buffers. The street buffer along South Ten Mile Road and South Vanguard Way was constructed with the improvements for the Ten Mile Creek Subdivision No. 1 for the common area site improvements. The buffer along South Ten Mile Road is required to be 35 feet wide as part of the entry corridor. The applicant has submitted a revised plan that shows that these meet the UDC requirements. The parking lot landscaping is required per the F16 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 14 of 46 standards in the UDC. Several planters within the parking lot are missing trees and a planter is missing adjacent to the trash enclosure and additionally previously it appeared that the central landscape island that runs along Innovation Lane did not meet the five foot required -- width requirement. Staff did recommend increasing the size of that planter -- of that planter and recommended adding the additional trees. The applicant did receive -- we did receive a revised plan from the applicant addressing the missing trees and increasing the size of the planter and also adding the planter adjacent to the trash enclosure. The building elevations -- conceptual elevations that were submitted for the proposed structure consist of stucco, parapet metal -- metal wall coping. Thin brick and metal awnings and glazing and the final design is required to comply with the Ten Mile Crossing design guidelines and the applicant did provide us with that approval this week. There is no written testimony on this project and staff does recommend approval of a conditional use permit that includes all of the conditions in the findings in the staff report. And that concludes staff's presentation and I stand for any questions. Smith: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come up? And if you could state your name and address that would be great. Thank you. Watson: Yeah. My name is Kevin Watson. 20547 Friends Road, Greenleaf, Idaho. Go ahead and start. I think -- I had a small presentation. Stacy, is that -- awesome. Well, I would just like to thank the Commission for hearing us tonight. I appreciate you guys being here to hear this proposal. We are really happy. Chik-Fil-A is very excited to be presenting a second Chik-Fil-A to the City of Meridian. Think it's going to be great to serve the citizens here and we have had a chance to have sit downs with Stacy and Bill and Nick Napoli earlier in the -- in the process and they had been extremely informative and helpful. Help -- helping us get to this point. So, I got a brief presentation that I wanted to share, so you guys kind of get some visuals of what we are proposing here. This is our landscape plan, which we revised. Thank you, planning staff, for including our revised plans in this. We spent some extra time to try and get as many of these things wrapped up before we met with the Commission. Just want to note that we are planning on protecting all of the existing landscaping along Ten Mile Road and around the corner on Vanguard Way. So, everything there is either going to be protected or replaced in like kind if -- if anything is affected by our development. Got some renderings that turned out really great, just to give everyone an idea of what this is going to look like once we are all done. This is our view looking northeast from Ten Mile Road. Got the other side view looking southeast from Ten Mile Road. Got a view looking north from Vanguard Way right near the corner of Ten Mile and we have got a great -- great image of the front of our building there from the northeast corner of the site. So, again, it was mentioned we are providing 96 parking stalls. We have provided directional signage and striping throughout the site. We have got a safe pedestrian access from Vanguard Way located right there adjacent to Vanguard going right up to the front of the restaurant. We are really happy that we were able to address most of the conditions on the conditions of approval and -- and get those taken care of and -- and corrected before we got here, but there are a few conditions that we would like to go over with the Commission. First -- and -- oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. The first condition that we wanted to address was condition 2-B, a request -- oh. I'm sorry. Condition 2-C F17 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 15 of 46 requests the north most access to be designated as an entrance only and the drive aisle to be one way. We asked our local traffic engineering firm Kittelson and Associates to take a look at this and just kind of assess how this would affect safety and circulation on our site. I have a copy of the circulation memo here if you guys would like to see it or I can just go through the -- Starman: If you would give a copy to the clerk and he -- or they will distribute it and, then, you probably should summarize it, since we didn't have an advanced copy. Thank you. Watson: Yeah. Just to summarize what the -- what the traffic engineer stated in the report. The engineering firm supports two way access on the -- on that north access there. They noted that contrary to the intent of the city by designating it as a one way drive aisle -- having it a one way drive aisle might actually make it more challenging and confusing for drivers on there. As you can see we have got three north-south drive aisles. If we were to make that a one way drive aisle it might be pretty challenging to effectively sign, stripe and enforce that there would be no right-hand turns at any one of those drive aisles. Any car might make a mistake and turn up one of those drive aisles expecting to exit the site and may be forced to either turn around or maybe turn back into the drive through queue or turn and make a wrong way movement and head out that north exit. Another thing that's noted by the transportation engineers that those -- that north bank of stalls is intended for employee parking. At any -- any one time we will have -- there is 15 stalls up there. Most of the time there is going to be more than 15 employees during any of the peak hours of business. Those stalls are going to be used by employees and there is not going to be cars backing out of those stalls and interfering with traffic coming on site. Another item that the traffic engineer notes is just that this is a fire lane. It's designated a 24 foot fire lane. Restricting that to one way motion could limit the accessibility for emergency vehicles. Also 20 -- like a large -- a large lane at 25 feet, people generally look at that as a two-way aisle. It's pretty large for a one way. It would be kind of confusing for drivers to see it and think it's going to be a one way and the traffic engineer also notes that it kind of encourages people to enter the site at a higher rate of speed by having so much extra room. Another good note on this is the -- for our deliveries and our trash hauler, the trash hauler especially requires a front -- the head on entrance to the trash enclosure, which is located at the north of the site there by the entrance to the drive through and the best route for the trash hauler is going to be come in that south entrance, head straight north into the trash enclosure, pick up the trash and, then, back up a short distance and turn right and head out of that north most access point and if we were to close that off to a one way the trash -- I'm not sure if the trash hauler would be able to do it, unless the trash companies had the requirement about how far they are able to back up and they have also got limited -- limited turn radius. So, this would present a pretty significant issue for us with our trash pickups by having it reduced to a one-way only. I think one that Chik-Fil-A really excels at and they are the industry leader in is that they provide a great speed of service and safe circulation of vehicles and pedestrians throughout the site. Chik-Fil-A has invested a lot of time and effort to get this right and they have been proven to get it right in city after city and they have been proving that consistently. So, by having this restriction -- F18 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 16 of 46 we kind of restrict Chik-Fil-A's ability to do what it does best and that's to manage their traffic on site in the most efficient and safest way possible. So, we would ask that the Commission remove conditioned 2-C from the conditions of approval. Starman: And, sir, may I interject just for one moment and, Mr. Chairman, with your permission -- that's what -- both the record, but also for Commissioners Stoddard and Grace, the city clerk has scanned the letter from the traffic engineer Kittelson and Associates. That's been forwarded to both of you electronically, so that you have it available to you. So, I just wanted the record to reflect that our Commissioners that are joined by Zoom do have the letter and are able to review it and wanted you to be aware of that as well. Thank you. Watson: Thank you. I appreciate that. And the next one we would like to address is condition six. Condition six requests a boundary line adjustment be completed prior to submittal for the certificate of zoning compliance. When we first started this project the planning staff did mention that they would prefer if we combine this lot and combine the three parcels into one, but they did say that it wasn't a requirement unless there was a permanent structure built over one of the parcel lines. So, we took that -- since we didn't have a permanent structure built over the parcel lines to mean that we wouldn't be required to do it. We, in fact, have no problem complying with this condition. We just have one issue with the timing of it. It would cause pretty significant delays to our project to be required to complete this prior to the certificate of zoning compliance. So, we would ask that the Commission revise this condition to state that we must -- must complete the property boundary line adjustment prior to permit issuance. Hersh: Mr. Chair and Commissioners. And staff's good with that. Smith: Okay. Thank you. Watson: Thank you. Moving on Condition 2-G back towards the beginning. Requested a pedestrian crossing is added to the site plan from the east boundary of the site adjacent to Innovation Lane to the front of the building. We believe the code section reference with this condition -- condition, 11-4-3-11, specifically subsection C requiring safe vehicular and pedestrian access and circulation is actually met by our safe pedestrian access from Vanguard Way on the southwest site, as well as the significant striping and signage that we have provided throughout the site. But we understand the intent of the city is to provide a site that circulates well, is safe for pedestrians and is effective. So, when we look at other similar recent developments in the area, like the new Starbucks located at 113 Ten Mile Road just north of our site, we see a really well circulate -- circulating lot, efficient -- efficiently -- works efficiently. Safe pedestrian access. But it doesn't have a specified pedestrian walkway from anywhere in the lot to the front of the building. I think we understand that pedestrians kind of intuitively know how to walk through parking lots and will choose the safest route through, especially if the site is circulating well. Additionally, we believe that the site will be better served with the additional parking provided by the five -- there will be five spaces that would be removed if we were to add that central walkway. We think that it's actually safer for us Fig Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 17 of 46 to have those five spaces, rather than to have potentially cars circulating through the lot looking for a parking space. Chik-Fil-A intends on having upwards of 45 to 50 employees, especially in those busy first grand opening times and they are going to be taking up a lot of parking spots. I think we are going to be needing as many parking spots as possible on this site and I think it presents a greater hazard to have cars circulating around the site looking for a spot to park than actually pedestrians being able to walk safely to the -- to the front of the building. With these points in mind we would like the condition 2-G to be revised to strike the first sentence and read the pedestrian walkways from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks as set forth in UDC-11-3A-1913.413, which we have made that adjustment to our site plan with our safe pedestrian access as stamped concrete. Finally remove -- I think we already have reached an understanding on this with our building elevations as we have received design approval, but their condition does read: The conceptual elevation shall incorporate a more pronounced parapet change to enhance the design on the west side -- west facing side along South Ten Mile Road in contrast to the current proposal. Since we have received design approval and I believe that was prior to planning staff making this condition -- or, I'm sorry, we have received approval post-planning staff making this condition, we would ask that that -- that Condition 7 be revised to read: Final design is required to comply with the adopted TM Crossing design guidelines and strike the first sentence and I believe the last one that we would like to address -- and I think we have also already come to an understanding with planning staff that Condition 2-B request additional signage and striping throughout the site. As planning staff noted, we have provided this striping and signage throughout the site. So, we would request that that condition be revised to read -- strike the word additional and just read: Signage and parking lot striping is required throughout the site to efficiently and adequately direct patrons to the menu boards and throughout the site with minimal conflict as shown on the approved site plan. And I believe those are all of them that we wanted to go over. Once again I thank the Commission for your time and consideration. Smith: Any Commissioners have questions? Rivera: I'm sorry. Can you repeat your Condition 7 request on site elevations? Watson: Yeah. Oh, Condition 7. So, we would request that the Condition 7 be revised to read: Final design -- it's basically strike the first sentence and we request that it read: Final design is required to comply with the adopted TM Crossing design guidelines. Rivera: Thank you. Grace: Mr. Chairman? Smith: Commissioner Grace. F20] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 18 of 46 Grace: I'm sorry, Commissioner Rivera, were you done? I didn't mean to cut you off, sir. Smith: I believe Commissioner Rivera -- Grace: Okay. Smith: -- was done. Rivera: Yes. Sorry. Yeah. Thank you. Grace: Yeah. Sorry. I turned on my camera. I had the benefit of seeing you, but you can't see me, so I thought it was only fair to turn my camera on. So, Mr. Watson, I know this probably isn't fair to project this onto you and your project, but I feel like we got to do that a little better than we did with the -- with the Chik-Fil-A in The Village and I think mostly that -- in my opinion that -- that revolves around the traffic concerns and I like what you are saying about -- it seems like there is more -- more lanes and you -- I thought I heard you could handle 37 vehicles, which I'm guessing is more than what's probably available at The Village Chik-Fil-A, but as it relates to your request on 2-C, can you confirm -- so, you want that north access to be both ways. I just was trying to look at the -- the site plan here. Is the drive through -- does that directly go -- flow south into the drive through that access area? That north access does flow directly south into the drive through area and we would like to clarify that functionally this north access and that north drive aisle will likely operate as a one way during peak hours. I don't know if you guys are familiar -- and you are familiar with the Meridian location that we do provide much more staking and a much -- this site has been designed much better than that location and we have got more staking, better circulation on site, but one of the things is that site uses magnetic delineators and I imagine you have seen them little posts that are in the parking lot and they help direct the drive-through traffic. Those are removable and they are used during their high volume peak hours to kind of direct traffic in the way it limits traffic flow on site during those high -- high intensity hours and, then, during the off-peak times they are able to remove them to restore better circulation on site. I think that what we are asking for is not that we always want the north access drive aisle to be continuously two way, is that we want the operator to be able to be flexible with that and to be able to limit it, maybe add in magnetic delineators and limit the access to that, so that it does flow directly into the drive through during -- during those high -- high volume times, but within -- then at the same time be able to remove that during the slow times, so that we have access for the trash haulers, so that during quieter hours people aren't restricted in their movements on the parking lot. Grace: Okay. I'm going to ask my other question, but as it relates to 2-C, I think I would like to hear from the city on that, but let me just ask my other question and, then, I can -- I will stop talking. On 2-G I feel like there is probably a reason why we are looking for that walkway. I was confused as to your -- you were saying strike the first sentence, which basically says to incorporate -- incorporate a pedestrian walkway, but to leave the F21 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 19 of 46 second, which says the pedestrian walkway from the perimeter sidewalk shall be distinguished. So, can you just clarify that for me? Watson: Yeah. I believe the second sentence also refers to our southern pedestrian safe access point. If you look to the south at the exit of our drive through that's also a safe pedestrian access from Vanguard Way. I think we understood that that second half of the condition to also apply to that pedestrian access and so we did not want to strike the whole condition as we totally -- we definitely understand that having a change in material or texture there to really make sure we signifying that that's a safe pedestrian crossing is important and we revised our plans to show the stamped concrete that we plan on putting there. Grace: So, that second part of that condition relates to a different pedestrian walkway than was what you are saying? Watson: Yeah. We understood that condition to relate to all pedestrian crossings on the site and not only the one that was being asked for through the central portion of the site from Innovation Lane, but also from the south -- the south area of the site along Vanguard. Grace: Okay. Okay. Thank you. And I can -- the other conditions I -- I would like to hear from the others, but I don't know that I have too much heartache over them. But I would like -- I think I would like to hear from staff if they had any comment at all about the request on 2-C. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Smith: Would staff like to comment on 2-C? Hersh: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, staff had put that condition in because we just wanted to see safe pedestrian access through the parking lot, because we know how busy Chik-Fil-A gets, just to make sure that people had a safe way to get from the parking lot to the building. That was our thoughts on that and how we feel about that, but it is up to Commission how they -- how they see it and want to condition this project. Smith: I believe -- is that -- that's the 2-G ask; right? That was -- Grace: Thank you. I was -- I was really hoping for an opinion on 2-C regarding the one way -- yeah. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Hersh: Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Grace. So, the one way -- staff wants to see that, because all the traffic is flowing into the -- the drive through area and, then, if you have, like they said, really busy times that people are going to be driving north and trying to get out that way and it's going to kind of create some safety issues for people -- or people pulling out, but they -- from the north, but they said that they were going to designate that as employee parking. Grace: Thank you. I appreciate that. F22 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 20 of 46 Smith: I actually do have questions on 2-G though and I guess my question is mainly of Kurt, that there is the -- the applicants don't -- correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth. It sounds like they are saying that they are already in compliance without the proposed policies -- without the proposed additional pedestrian walkway down the middle of the parking lot. Is that your interpretation of that statute as it's applied? Is that consistent with kind of how the city has operated up to this point? Starman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Really that's a judgment call for the Commission. I would answer -- or add a couple thoughts. One is that -- so, the -- the city's development code does require pedestrian safety from the parking lot to the building and so we -- that's a requirement of code. The Commission and the applicant needs to adhere to that code requirement. We can't just wave that. In terms of what constitutes compliance that there is no bright line there, it's really going to be a judgment for the Commission and I would say that even if, for argument's sake, the applicant is correct that what they propose meets the minimum requirements of the code, I would also know that the Commission has the authority with the conditional use permit to require something in excess of the minimum based upon specific site conditions and -- and issues going on with this particular development. So, even if you believe that the proposal before you meets the minimum intent of the code, you do have the ability to condition something more to mitigate the potential negative impacts of the project being proposed. But, ultimately, I'm going to probably punt back to you and say it's going to be the Commission's decision as to whether or not this is -- the applicant's version is a -- creates enough safe pedestrian connections. Smith: Okay. Thank you. I guess my question, then, goes to the applicant. Looking at this map here -- let me pick a spot -- near the Innovation Lane there is a circle that's -- with a four in it. Just -- just south of -- the first lot -- the first parking spot south of that entrance -- entrance -- entrance and exit point. How do you anticipate, absent a pedestrian walkway, a pedestrian could safely get from there to that Chik-Fit-A? Watson: Well, I think we believe that the major points of circulation are going to be kind of in that highlighted fire lane. Entering the drive through, exiting the drive through, entering the site, exiting the site. I think we would expect that most of the traffic's going to be coming along those lanes. So, I would think just as I would do at any grocery store or Target or Home Depot, that I would get out of my car and I would look both ways and make sure a car wasn't driving through the drive aisle and I would walk directly towards the restaurant. I think -- I think most of the time in my experience I don't go looking for a safe pedestrian walkway through Home Depot or through a large parking lot, I generally think that most -- most pedestrians intuitively know and I think generally drivers know that when you are driving through a parking lot you are going to have cars that potentially might back out, you are going to have pedestrians who are walking through and it is just a general expectation that -- that safety should be -- should be kind of the top priority for both drivers and pedestrians in that situation. I would like to note that I just also believe that removing those five parking spots -- while it would be nice to just add an extra pedestrian path there, I think that removing those five spots will actually decrease the level of safety on the site and that the site will be better served, 23 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 21 of 46 safer, circulate better with those spots and with less of a chance of people circulating around the site potentially looking for a parking spot. People tend to get impatient when they don't find a parking spot, so I think ideally we want to provide a spot for everyone who is there to park and I think once they park and they get out of their car they are going to be able to arrive safely to the front of the restaurant. Smith: So, I have an additional question, but I want to address something that you said regarding other stores, other -- other grocery stores. To my understanding, especially for big box stores, the standard tends to be for this -- this kind of parking schematic to be look -- kind of rotated 90 degrees almost, so that the cars back out parallel to the building and not perpendicular to them and what that does, if you are thinking like a Home Depot, for example, you are walking alongside the backs of the cars to get to the -- to get to the store and you are minimally walking through the drive aisle and it seems like that's not the case here, which is -- sorry, I'm moving close and far away from this. That doesn't seem to be the case here and so I'm really concerned by the movement of people down a drive aisle. Obviously there are conflict points crossing the drive aisle. That's inherent to any design. But it seems to me that if you are walking down a drive aisle that entire drive aisle becomes a conflict point and that's my concern here. I understand that the concern of the parking stalls and things like that, but -- but that's kind of the main concern here. So, I will give you an opportunity to address that. But I also want to ask an additional question regarding the one way fire lane, especially around -- specifically around refuse removal. If the concern is refuse removal with the way that these are loaded and I guess this is also a question for staff, if there is anything preventing the applicant from doing so. Is there anything preventing swapping some of those employee parking spaces on the south side with the waste receptacle on the north side? It seems like that would allow a refuse removal truck that's front loaded -- or regarding those issues -- it seems like that would allow for that, while not changing any parking structure kind of calculus. Watson: I wondered if staff wanted to respond? Hersh: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, there isn't anything that prevents them from moving the trash receptacles to the south. They may just lose more parking stalls, which I don't know if it's ideal for them, but they have plenty of parking per our requirements for a restaurant, but I know how busy they get. Watson: So if I can add to that. The trash truck usually does require a straight on head-on delivery. Looking at the site we would have to confirm with the trash hauler, since the parking stalls in our drive through is offset a bit, we could potentially put the trash enclosure there, but it would be offset and I'm not sure if the trash hauler would approve of that location. Secondly -- and I don't know -- I know that we were subject to kind of a higher level of design guidelines and screening for trash enclosure is one of the comments from Jon Wardle with the Ten Mile Crossing design review board, that we had to -- we added additional landscaping and additional trees around the trash enclosure for screening purposes as part of the guidelines for that -- that development. I don't know what he would say about moving the trash enclosure to a very highly visible F24] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 22 of 46 area right -- right near the corner of Ten Mile and Vanguard. I know that during our meetings and discussions about design, it was very important to them to make sure that that corner looked really good and that we had great landscaping there, great screening, that we provided a small wall along the outside of our drive through to help with screening. So, I don't know that Jon Wardle is here tonight to be able to comment on that, but my understanding is -- I think he would not be as excited about that location for the trash enclosure. Smith: Thank you. So, it seems to me that this boils down to a question of time of use really. If -- if this is -- as you were saying the -- the applicant being -- or the -- the Chick- Fil-A being able to use cones and traffic cones and things like that to redirect traffic during peak hours, it -- to me that seems to be a bad design and I want to give you an opportunity to address that, because when I see that and I see, you know, I'm driving against the way that the traffic arrow is pointed, because some orange cones are set up in kind of a space, it seems to me that that is -- you know, has high potential to confuse a driver, has high potential to create conflict zones or someone not understanding whether they are able to operate their vehicle in that direction, et cetera, and I also think that there is some concerns I have seen, whether it's other Chik-Fil-As, other In and Outs, other kind of high demand restaurants that implement this, it seems like that has high potential to also kind of turn into -- from what I have seen one day you go and the entry point is at site A and, you know, the next time you go there the entry point is at site B, because of the way that the -- kind of the traffic needs to snake to stay off like the main road, for example. And so I think to my mind it seems like that has high potential to create confusion, to create more complex opportunities with people trying to understand -- understand exactly where they are supposed to be going, based on time of day what entrance to use and things like that. I guess could you -- could you speak to that? Watson: Yeah. And I -- and I can understand that concern. I think it would be my opinion that magnetic delineators that are placed temporarily -- those are going to be highly visible and they are going to be in your path and they are going to be blocking your path. That may seem somewhat confusing, but if you were to start heading north there, you know, you could turn right into the drive aisle and head off site or you could go and -- go any which direction you are required to if you didn't realize that that was not the way to go. I think a sign being placed at every single one of these intersections, which is likely what would be required to -- to try and enforce and try and stripe and sign this appropriately to limit it to one way, I think people are more likely to miss a sign located in a planter than they are to miss something blocking their path that's bright and it's in the road. I think everyone understands that cones in the road means don't drive there. So, as far as the level of confusion that might be -- that might be induced, I think signs are more likely to confuse people and more likely to -- you will be more likely to have wrong way movements in that drive aisle, rather than magnetic delineators and I think the intent -- the city's intent and concern there I think is valid. What we are asking is that the operator have the -- have the flexibility to be able to handle that on site, because he wants it to be handled and safe as well. It's just different times of day can F25] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 23 of 46 require different things and that's why those magnetic delineators are a good -- a good option for that. Smith: Thank you. Any other commissioners have any other questions before we move on to testimony? Grace: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, just a follow up on that last exchange. So, if it's a off- peak hour and you are saying you could really benefit from that north access point being both ways, I guess what I'm thinking is if it's off peak why does it really matter? I mean there will be -- I think the benefit you get is when it's -- when you are in peak hours and basically I don't think anyone's going to be able to exit there. I think you will have -- based on my -- the reading of what the community -- the affection it has for Chik-Fil-A and peak hours, you are going to have a lot of cars going in there. I just -- I guess I was just questioning what -- what's -- what's the value if it is off peak? There is -- there is two other places to come and go. But you don't have to answer that, I'm just more thinking out loud and if you don't want to. Watson: Yeah. This is Sabrina. This is a representative from Chik -- Chik-Fil-A development lead. Smith: Could I get your address as well? Wright: 2220 Denver Street, San Diego, California. 90110. Sabrina Wright. W-r-i-g-h-t. Smith: Thank you. Wright: Thank you, Commissioner and staff. I just wanted to clarify and help -- there has been a lot of talk around traffic. As Kevin has done a great job pointing out, we do have operators -- individual operators who own and operate individually in the community and bring employees in. The traffic concerns -- we just want to give them the flexibility. We completely understand the innate nature of people wanting to go one way into our drive-through lane. We are just asking for the flexibility so that during off- peak times, you know, we know we are going to be busy from noon to -- 11.00 to 2.00 o'clock times and maybe in the evening, but in the off-peak times to help our customers who are parking and, then, our employees who are also getting out, that both way access in that north drive is pretty critical, just in those other times of day. The magnet delineators that Kevin mentioned are a great tool for us to use. They are actually in ground so they don't protrude. They come off and they go up when they are needed and they just help that traffic flow. The operator -- and additionally will come through and make some additional changes as needed daily. I think that was one of the things that was mentioned was having the point of entry change. Our entry to our drive through isn't going to change. Our stack is significant here. It's a double stack. It's 37 cars -- almost 40 cars. There is not another stack like that around. Plus we have a third escape lane that will help keep cars moving in and off. We generally -- our speed of service comes in, you know, around under a minute. So, I mean we are constantly F26 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 24 of 46 having cars flow. So, we understand the need to make sure that cars are moving both in and out and off of our lot. So, just wanted to add that. Thank you. Smith: Thank you. Any other Commissioners' questions? Rivera: Yes. Smith: Commissioner Rivera. Rivera: Thank you, Commissioner Smith. Rivera: For someone that visits Chik-Fil-A quite too often, we have been there twice this week already. Smith: You and me both. Rivera: I appreciate the -- the stack, because, like I said, I'm there pretty often with my kids. But on this one just real quick I have a couple of questions, but there is -- there is three lanes into the drive through; right? Or there is three exits, like emergency -- Watson: That's correct. This city requires an escape lane for a drive through over believe a hundred feet or a certain number of feet. So, that third lane all the way around is to provide an escape lane. So, we will be right -- provide drive through services all the way around through the inner two lanes and the outer lane will be as an escape lane for any cars that might have gotten stuck in the drive through. Rivera: I also was going to question where the trash, you know, is located, but he -- Commissioner Smith already addressed that. But I -- I personally am in favor of the -- having the flow of traffic go both ways, you know, instead of just one way, just to -- or the flow to be easier in my opinion and also I also am in favor of having more parking spaces than not. I would rather see better compared to some of the other businesses at The Village, like better lighting in the parking lot, like -- like these -- like now in the fall where it gets dark earlier, you know, the -- right there there is no necessarily pedestrian, you know, straight to the store, but it gets dark and I think that's more dangerous than -- than -- I just don't feel other people following the pedestrian walkway, I would rather have more parking spots, but I would rather have better lighting than -- than adding that, but just something that I don't -- I don't see right here how much light is going to be there, but I do like the two way -- have the lane be two way and, then, have more parking spaces than -- than that. But other than that I think -- and I say that because I think the -- the stacking is deep enough compared to some of the other stores where it was just probably not too -- not doable to add more, but I think it's deep enough and -- for the -- for this -- for this section right here and this area right here. Watson: Thank you, Commissioner Rivera. We appreciate that. The lighting as shown on here -- it's just a little bit difficult to see and it's not highlighted, but we do have two lights at the first -- the first island kind of south of the center -- of the center drive aisle. F27 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 25 of 46 Another light in the center of the next island to the -- to the east and, then, a light as well and, then, if you go south they just -- they are kind of small in there and they are difficult to see, but we absolutely -- it's one of -- one of the things that we do as we are doing a construction site is go through -- we look at our photometric and we make sure an address if any of the foot candles look too low in an area, especially around the drive through and around the corners of the drive through where vehicles are going through, there is areas that can get missed and so we double check all of those to make sure that -- that we have really provided really good lighting, because you got to be able to see and same -- same in the parking lot. So, we are -- we are right there with you. Rivera: Yeah. It's just hard to tell right there. Watson: They are difficult. Rivera: I'm sure you guys have addressed it, but I think strong good better lighting than preferred more parking spaces and better lighting for -- for you like when it gets dark really -- really early. Watson: Thank you. Smith: Any other questions of the applicant or staff from Commissioners? All right. will, then, move on to public testimony. Is there anyone -- you can be seated. Anyone signed up? Lomeli: No one signed up in person and I do not have a hand raised online. Smith: Anyone in the audience like to come and testify? Seeing none. Okay. The applicant -- would you like to -- is there anything you would like to come back up in closing or anything like that? Wright: Again in closing I just want to thank you all. I want to thank all the effort staff has put in and worked with us to present a plan. You know, I think one of the Commissioners mentioned earlier the concerns over the previous Chik-Fil-A Meridian. We learned from our lessons, we get better with each one, and this site is -- it's a nice big site, we have addressed traffic concerns, parking concerns. We are trying to continue to get better as we develop and we are very excited to have this second Chik- Fil-A coming in Meridian. So, thank you again for your time and appreciate all your concerns. Smith: Thank you. Any other Commissioners have questions? I have one additional one at the end -- if you want to go for it? Rivera: No, I -- I'm good. Smith: Okay. Sorry. Any other questions from other Commissioners? F28 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 26 of 46 Stoddard: I don't have any questions. Smith: All right. My question is -- and I guess this is a question of fellow Commissioners, as well as the applicant. I just want to make sure we are all on the same page before we close the public hearing -- around what the specific asks are for the items in the staff report. Especially, if anyone is planning on making a motion. Rivera: Are there -- sorry, Commissioners. Under -- on the adjustments requested by the applicant, I guess to staff are there any of those -- you know, the 2-C, condition 6, 2- B, are any of those out of -- you know, are they all like doable for in the eyes of staff and meeting our, you know, plan or -- Hersh: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, so the ones that were -- they were asking to remove staff had put those as conditions, so that would be actually your decision whether or not you wanted to keep them in or agree with the applicant to remove them or change them in some other form or way and I believe they were removing 2-C and was it 2-B? I don't actually have the staff report in front of me, but -- Smith: That is my understanding. Watson: Yeah. Would you like me to go through specifically our revisions? Starman: Yeah. That would be helpful if you would. And for our planning staff, Stacy in particular, I -- as the applicant goes through and just kind of summarizes the request, I do think there was agreement amongst staff and the applicant relative to at least a couple of these -- I think it was items -- or conditions six and seven. So, maybe you can make a note of that along the way, so we can -- for the Commission's benefit we can distinguish what is -- whether it's agreement and whether it's not agreement. Watson: Great. So, the first one I mentioned was Condition 2-C and we asked that the -- the Commission remove Condition 2-C. For Condition 2-B, I believe that planning staff already kind of concurred that we have provided the signage required and the striping required for -- for safety on the site. So, we have requested just a revision in that condition, so that it's a little more clear to remove the word additional from the beginning of this -- the condition and just say signage and parking lot striping is required throughout the site to efficiently and adequately direct patrons to the menu boards and throughout the site with minimal conflict as shown on the approved site plan. Hersh: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, staff is good with that. Smith: All right. Rivera: That's 2-B; right? Smith: That was 2-B. Yeah. 29 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 27 of 46 Watson: Condition six is regarding a -- I believe we already had -- we concur with staff on this one as well, that to adjust condition six to read: Submit a property boundary adjust -- adjustment to combine all three properties into one party -- or property. I will not list each parcel, but remove prior to submitting for the certificate of zoning compliance and change that to prior to issuance of building permits. Hersh: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, staff is good with that. Watson: Conditions seven as well I think we already have reached agreement with staff. But we have asked to strike the first sentence on condition seven, just to make it more clear that there will be no more changes that require elevations and just state final design is required to comply with the adopted TM Crossing design guidelines. And, finally, condition 2-G, we have requested that the first sentence of condition 2-G be removed, so that it reads: The pedestrian walkways from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers, excuse me, colored or scored concrete or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19BAB. Smith: All right. Thank you. Any other questions from Commissioners? Seeing none, will take a motion to close the public hearing. Grace: So moved. Stoddard: So moved. Second. Smith: I have a motion and a second. All in favor, please, say aye. Opposed? I didn't actually hear anyone from Zoom. Could you say aye if you -- thank you. Aye as well. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Smith: So, I will just kind of give my thoughts on this. I mean I kind of discussed it a bit already. I think I would slightly prefer seeing that to be a -- a one way in that filing regarding the 2-C request. I'm not -- you know, I -- there is just -- seeing it implemented elsewhere I just don't think it's a great design and I think there is better opportunities. I also would agree with Commissioner Grace that if the concern is peak hours and it's going to be designated that way during peak hours, it seems like that would actually make the most sense anyway to reduce confusion. But I'm less concerned about that one as I am concerned with the request on 2-G. I -- I really do feel that there is a need for better pedestrian safety and better pedestrian interconnectivity within this -- or I guess just not inter -- pedestrian connectivity within this parking lot. Just -- you know, having -- having gone to Chik-Fil-A with nieces, nephews, young kids, with elderly family, you know, parking lots even -- even well designed parking lots -- even, you know, really great designed parking lots can be huge risk areas for those folks and I think the -- I would disagree with the idea that enhancing pedestrian safety with a walkway would create more opportunity for conflicts I -- I personally -- and, again, F30 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 28 of 46 whoever makes the motion is allowed to make the motion as they desire, but I really would -- would like to see that walkway required. I think the five -- they are already pretty significantly exceeding parking requirements and that is the updated parking requirements. Sorry. I think they -- it looks like they -- they are going to have a good amount of parking here and so I don't know what the -- you know, the net cost to the operator in terms of, you know -- clientele would be for that parking issue, but I do know that, you know, if you can reduce the risk for pedestrians with a pretty -- pretty simple fix I think that's worth it. So, that's -- that's just kind of my thoughts there. But I will leave it up to rest of the Commission if anyone has any discussion or thoughts. Parsons: Mr. Chair, before we get too deep into your deliberations, you know, the applicant testified we have a pretty good working relationship and I think we could probably find some common ground on that pedestrian connectivity as we move through the CZC and design review process. But I want to be very clear, I think it is important to have something in that parking area for sure. Looking at their site design it looks like some of their planter islands are larger than what code requires, so I think if we were just to finesse their site design a little bit more I think we would probably lose less parking than what they think, if you would maybe potentially think about modifying the condition. I don't know how specific it is, because I don't have the staff report either, but at the same time just maybe add that they continue to work with staff on addressing the pedestrian circulation with the CZC process and allow us to continue to build on relationships and make sure that we get that adequately addressed. I think that would -- I think that gives them some flexibility. It gets them moving along, gets them under -- you know, gets them in front of staff again to try to make sure that we do get something else -- another pedestrian connection out there in that central parking area, because again, as this -- as Kurt mentioned, you know, it's -- the code isn't black and white, it doesn't say thou shalt do this, it says provide safe pedestrian and so that's where all of us are working together to make sure that happens and so that's where Stacy and I came up with our recommendation, felt that it was important enough here to do that, just because the amount of trips this type of business generates, we know there is going to be a lot of people at this facility, so we want to make sure we get it right as well. Smith: Thank you. I guess to that extent I think maybe something like tweaking -- to strike the words middle of the -- and the front of the -- in the first sentence to read incorporate a pedestrian walkway from the easternmost parking area through the parking lot leading to the building to facilitate safe pedestrian access, that might leave room for, you know, finagling that through the parking lot, however you want, but ensuring that that connectivity is the same. I agree, I would really like to see something there. Whether it's a question of -- of code requirements, if it's already in compliance or just on kind of good policy grounds, I think that is one that I feel really strongly about. There does need to be something there. Parsons: And, Mr. Chair, on the -- the elevation requirement that was brought up, the applicant is correct, the -- the say is by the terminal crossing design review. There is a process for them to go through. Again, this is a conditional use permit. So, again, we can impose certain things that we want to see and so I had Stacy bring up this graphic, 31 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 29 of 46 because I don't think we are talking about a huge significant change to their elevation. If you look at this rendering here you can see under the one parapet there they have their signage and they have a nice cap on top of the ridge line there. It looks like it's the southwest corner of the building there. All we are saying is say take that same treatment and do that on the farther edge of the building there to break up the roof line. That's all we wanted to see. So, hopefully, the applicant can -- can see that we are just trying to get a little bit more architectural detailing on a prominent roadway, which is Ten Mile Road, just like Jon Wardle wants for the development, so it -- to me it was a minimal ask to have that cap added to that corner. Again, it's -- it's -- it's in your purview, but we just -- I just want to let you know where staff was coming from on -- on that particular requirement. Smith: All right. Any other questions -- or not questions. Comments, discussion from other Commissioners? Grace: Yeah, Mr. -- Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a few if I could. Smith: Okay. Commissioner Grace. Grace: Sure. So, I want to thank the applicant and I appreciate their -- all the work they have done on -- on this and building a good relationship with the city and recognizing the challenges maybe that we have had with the -- I guess the first Chik-Fil-A in Meridian. So, I do want to thank them. I -- I guess I feel less strongly about the pedestrian walkway than I did the -- the requests for 2-C regarding the -- the one way north access point. I like staff's comment. I think about 2-G with regard to maybe having the applicant work -- continue to work with staff to sort of finesse and address the pedestrian circulation. So, I think if the applicant is good with that that might be a good solution there. Let me just speak to 2-C a little bit. As I understand that, the entire fire lane is not changing into -- into a -- or strike that. The city's not asking that the entire fire lane change into a one way directional, but rather that that north access point is only an entrance -- entrance and if that's correct -- if it's not someone -- someone throw a shoe at me and tell me I'm wrong, but if it's -- if that's correct, then, I think that's a good -- an important point, that they are just asking that that be an entrance access point. I really would like to avoid traffic cones and other temporary measures as much as we could. I do appreciate that the operator is going to be mindful and probably will make good decisions -- safe decisions. I get that. I don't think that off peak is going to be as big a deal as -- as maybe is -- is represented. I think most of those vehicles are going to exit that -- that drive through and go out the south most -- south -- south most exit. I think we are talking about a handful of parking spaces towards the north where they will have a little further to go to get to that -- maybe that middle access point and so I don't want to get this wrong again either and I don't think it's an unreasonable request by staff. So, I guess I -- that's a long winded way of saying I just feel a little more strongly about 2-C like where maybe we are heading with 2-G and I was -- you know, I'm glad, obviously, that there appears to be some agreement on six and seven -- conditions six and seven and 2-B I guess I don't have a problem with striking the word additional there. So, I don't know if we can all agree on the different requests. I'm not 32 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 30 of 46 sure who is going to write and say this motion, but that's sort of where I'm at with the requested changes. Smith: Yeah. Commissioner Grace, I would say that I'm probably in agreement with kind of where you are coming from. I think you are -- what you are good with on G is kind of where I'm okay there. I think something being there is adequate terminology for staff to work with the applicant through and ensuring there is some connectivity. I also, you know, thank you for -- for pointing out the entrance only kind of language there. It actually does seem that -- if you were to pull up a map of the site that the trash refuse removal truck could come through the bottom entrance, collect the trash and, then, loop back out that bottom exit through the -- through the drive aisle. So, it does seem like that would be feasible. Sorry. I guess the only question is to staff if having that entrance only, if that requires some amount of space for it to be one way or if there is some requirement in code. Kurt, if you could speak to that as well or if anyone knows if there is any requirements that that being entrance only also does, as a consequence, require that some strip be one way only. There is -- Hersh: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, they could angle their parking on the north, so that the drive aisle was condensed smaller, but there isn't anything in code that says that it needs to shrink and particularly in size. Smith: There is no -- there is no requirements past -- you know, past the entry only -- other than that there is no requirements on the -- the drive aisle being one way only for any period of length or anything like that? Hersh: No. Smith: Okay. Just wanted to confirm. Thank you. Commissioner Grace, I'm -- I think I'm around to kind of where you are at as well on this. If that helps when seeking to make a motion. Any other Commissioners have thoughts? Would anyone like to make a motion or -- Rivera: I think I'm -- clarification on 2-G to work with applicant and staff to create something -- to reduce maybe the planters or the reduction of those islands to come up with some kind of a mutual agreement with a safety walkway. I -- I am on board with that for sure. I still don't see that the -- on the 2-C it will be just that aisle leads into the entry of the -- of the drive through. Is that what we are proposing only as one -- as one way? Hersh: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Rivera, yes. It's just the north drive aisle that goes directly into the drive through lanes. Rivera: So, in between those that -- on that one aisle that leads into the -- into Intervention Way. There is -- there is one, two, three. So, all those cars that are in between -- if they go out that way they are going to have to make a left. They can't go F33] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 31 of 46 right. They are all going to have to make a left and, then, loop all the way around to exit. If they -- they are heading that way; right? Hersh: That is correct. Smith: To clarify, if I'm -- what we are speaking to is -- is it doesn't need to be one way there, it's just you can't exit out of that direction. So, if you are coming out -- if you are at the -- in the drive aisle nearest -- I keep reading the name of the road as Innovation. If your nearest Innovation, yeah, you would have to turn left. If you were closer to the Chik-Fil-A you could theoretically turn right to get down to those other drive aisles -- Rivera: And turn right in -- Smith: And turn, you know, out on any -- of those two -- the two bottom exits. It would be my understanding and correct me if I'm wrong from -- from what I was asking of staff is it seems like you could -- it's not a one way, it's just you can't exit out of that -- that location. Rivera: Right. But it's still one way from the entry all the way through. That entire aisle still is just one way. Smith: It would be one way up until -- up until the end of that landscaping buffer essentially, because that's the only direction -- you could still go out toward Innovation as long as you are not planning to exit that. You could go -- yeah, if you want to follow the cursor you could go out to Innovation and turn right in that drive aisle before Innovation and go down there. There is nothing in code preventing it from being two way, just as long as people aren't exiting that one driveway -- Rivera: The one on the very top. Smith: The one on the very top. Right. So, it would -- it could still theoretically have that flexibility, it's just the only point is that point of entry or exit and it's not a requirement of one way or two way through that entire top drive aisle, it's just that kind of small space there. Rivera: Right. And is that -- the recommendation for that is because we -- we -- we fear that the congestion is going to be backed up. Hersh: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Rivera, yes, people coming from the south to the north trying to exit that way -- or if they are parked here pulling out trying to exit while there is multiple people trying to go through the drive through, it could create some type of conflict is what we are seeing. Rivera: I just -- I just think it's -- it's -- it causes more confusion if we have it one way for cars coming up and I think the driveway -- it's deep enough in 37 -- the queue is quite deep, but -- 34 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 32 of 46 Grace: Mr. Chairman, can I add a comment? I don't want to interrupt Commissioner Rivera, but he made me think about something. Smith: Mr. Rivera, are you -- Rivera: Yeah. Go ahead. Grace: Yeah. You know, you make a good point and, again, if -- if all we are saying is that the entrance way there has got to be one way, but the entire lane can be both ways, I kind of feel like what's the point? I mean if there are going to be cars going east in that lane, but they always -- they can go as far as that last, you know, lane going south, but they can't exit, so they got to go down that last lane going south, we are still creating a -- you know, we are still creating a log jam there. I guess, you know, you make a good point and I -- I wasn't seeing that until maybe this landscape plan map came up where I could see this a little better. I don't know that we -- I don't know that we -- we gain anything. I don't know. What do you think, if we just say, yeah, you can go east all the way, but you just can't exit, does that -- and during peak hours does that really help when -- when there is a lot of cars coming in to the drive through heading west? I don't know. Smith: Yeah. Commissioner Grace, it -- I think to me it -- that that's why I don't feel super strongly about this. It's kind of like I wish I could wave a magic wand and just make it better, but it seems like all of the -- the solutions that -- it's all trade-offs in one way or another and so I think, you know, it's -- it's really -- if we were to require that would the operator -- I mean it seems like the operator would likely probably want to just make it one way, but that would kind of be up to them it seems. Grace: Yeah. I can see, Mr. Chairman, the operator putting cones right -- you know, I can't -- I can't show you, because I can't point to anything, but I can see them blocking that lane off. Right there. Yes. And it -- and when you are coming into the drive through can you get to that south most lane if there are cars exiting there? I have a feeling he's going to block that off anyway. So, I hate to -- I hate to go full circle on every one right here during the meeting, but I guess this is why we have these meetings, but I'm wondering what the value is of saying you can go all the way, but you can't exit. Smith: Yeah. Commissioner Grace, I think you are right, the more I'm thinking about it. I think -- like I said, I still probably am slightly in favor of it kind of being one way there, but -- so I don't feel super strongly about it, so I'm fine with -- Grace: If you made the whole lane one way I'm with you, but that's not what the city -- that's not what staff recommended and I don't want to -- I probably don't want to go that far. Smith: Mr. Rivera, do you have discussion? F35] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 33 of 46 Rivera: No. Like I said, we have -- you know, the other two -- both ways. I just don't see why we have all three of them, you know. Like I said, I think it's going to cause more congestion if we go out that way and you can only make a right -- you can only make a left. Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Chair, staff's recommendation is the entire drive lane be one way, not just that entrance. So, if there was any confusion we apologize, but that's not the intent of the condition. But you do bring up -- I mean all of this -- that's why we brought it up, because, again, we -- we know how busy it is. We know the conflict point. It's just when we see the northern drive aisle and how you have to jog to the left to get into the farthest most -- the closest drive through lane, that's where we see the conflict right there is now if that's backed up and cars are going to try to weave out around it -- a bunch of cars that are stacking there, I'm not saying it's going to be stacked up all the time, you are absolutely right, it's not going to -- and with the amount of the stacking they have, this is probably more than I have seen on any drive in Meridian. So, again, it's hard to say whether it will work or not, but we just have to point out those conflict points and to me that's the conflict. But to your point, if you go one way, then, you create other conflicts, because the people backing out of the employee parking -- how are they -- now we are forcing them to enter the traffic that's also trying to get into the drive through and they have to try to weave in and out of traffic where they could be blocked or to your point, then, what if it goes the wrong way and, then, we still have openings into the parking -- to the central parking area from that one-way drive aisle, which will -- again, people that want to back out of their spacing in order to exit out on north, now they can't, because it's one way, now they have got to do a three point turn and try to go the other way to get out of the site. So, again, there is a -- there is -- there is ways to design this and make it work, but, again, when we met with the applicant we asked them to put planter islands and block it all off and do all of those things to try to minimize those impacts and they did not want to do that. They wanted to come forward with this design that you see tonight. Again, we tried to isolate that parking completely from the exit and entrance lanes of that drive through, so that everything would be walled off and you had one entrance point off Innovation Lane and everyone exited from that parking area out of that central area, so you did not have those complex, but that's the only way that I could see this functioning. If we wanted to -- in a perfect world that's -- that's how we had kind of communicated to the applicant and I still think what they are showing here and based on how they are going to operate it still could function what you see tonight. It's just depending on whether or not you have that comfort level moving forward with this conditional use permit. Rivera: As you can see that whole north parking lot -- parking spaces on -- on the north being angled parking when you come in. So, then, when they can pull it out you can try to go to this; right? You have to go out that way and that way it will leave -- and leaving the two things like this, but have that whole north be angled parking. So, you come in like that instead of -- Parsons: And that will require -- that we will lose some parking, because that's a little bit different dimensional standards there and -- but -- 36 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 34 of 46 Rivera: Right. But I rather -- Parsons: That does minimize some of that back out across -- Rivera: Right. That way we start stack -- Parsons: Absolutely. Rivera: Right that way -- I would rarely lose a couple of parking spots there, but you don't have people trying to back out and go this way and it's causing a traffic jam. Grace: So, can I -- Mr. Chairman, can I just get clarity from the Bill maybe? So, you were saying with that condition 2-C that that entire lane be one way, not just the entrance and exit area; is that accurate? Parson: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioners, that's accurate. That's just not the entrance. It was -- the whole thing -- double arrows going right into the drive through funneling that, because that's -- that's the driveway into the drive through lane. So, from our standpoint that was the easiest way to minimize the conflict, rather than add a bunch of landscape requirements and have them lose a bunch of different shapes, we were just trying to take -- try to make a quick easy fix, but, like I said, I -- I appreciate the applicant bringing this Kittelson study, because we don't see that very much and we are in the middle of changing drive-through standards, so I may steal this from you and maybe make that a requirement. If you want something different you provide a traffic study or some kind of analysis on how this is going to flow, I would appreciate that. I think you educated me a little bit tonight, so I do -- do appreciate you going through that work to show how your site works. But, again, it's your purview tonight, but, again, I could see definitely conflicts with the trash trucks and all those things that were brought up for sure. So, again, I like the suggestion of the angled parking. I think that minimizes some of the conflicts for at least the employees that want to get out of there, if there is some staking there, at least they can merge a little easier and not have to worry about having such a tight turn or area to get out of the parking space. It's a shorter radius to get out. Rivera: Yeah. I think that customers and employees, you know -- Grace: Mr. -- Mr. Chairman, one question for staff if they -- if they know. If the operator operated the site for a certain amount of time and, then, said, you know what, I would rather make that one way and install signs and whatnot, could we do that? Is there -- is there a process we could go through to -- I assume there is, but I just would like to put that on the record if we could. Hersh: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Grace, yes, they could apply for a certificate of zoning compliance to make the changes. They would be small. Grace: I don't want to take away the ability for someone to manage properly the property, you know. He might say to his employees, look, if you are going to be getting F37 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 35 of 46 off shift at 6:30, 7:00 o'clock on Friday night I wouldn't park there, you know, I -- they are going to manage -- he is going to want to give them the ability to operate and manage it and -- you know. So, I don't want to take that away. So, I guess -- yeah, I can -- it's either all or nothing, if that whole lane is blocked -- is one way or it's not and, you know, I -- I would rather err on the side of giving people the freedom to do what they -- what they think is best. Smith: Yeah. Commissioner Grace, I think I'm -- I'm being swayed that direction as well. If it helps. Yeah. It's just a tough little spot and I'm sure if this is blocked off there is probably trade-offs there that arise as well. So, I'm kind of a shrug on this -- this -- at this point. Yeah. Anyone like to make a motion? Grace: So, Mr. Chairman, if I could -- I don't know -- I know we are probably not supposed to take like straw votes and polls and things, but I just want to make sure -- we seem to be good on the -- I saw five requests for revision of the -- of the conditions. We seem to be good on number -- revision number six. Revision number 2-B. We seem to be all maybe sounding like in favor of 2-G, you know, adding some language to continue to work with staff. I think maybe we will wait until someone makes the motion, but I think we maybe have reached resolution on 2-C of -- at least in my mind of granting that request. And, then, number seven, it was a request to strike the first sentence. I felt like given staff comment about that by leaving in the second sentence, we are going to accomplish with staff why, which is, you know, the final design is required to comply with the -- with the guidelines. I feel like we will be heading there for the applicant to work with staff or make sure it does comply. So, I was comfortable personally with seven -- striking the first sentence. So, again, I don't want to speak for anyone, but that's -- if I make a motion I wanted to make sure that's sort of where we were. Smith: Commissioner Grace, I will check with staff to confirm on that revision number seven at least. Is that the opinion of staff that will be accomplished? Hersh: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, so that is up to the Ten Mile design review board to approve that. We had made a suggestion and that's actually up to the applicant if they would like to add something more or if the design -- Ten Mile guide design review board wants them to add something, but ultimately it's their approval. Smith: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Rivera, it seemed like you had some feedback. Rivera: No. I just wanted to also clarify that. Smith: Okay. Rivera: Number seven to see that was -- F38] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 36 of 46 Smith: Yeah. So, in light of that, Commissioner Grace, I think I'm spot on with that. The only thing I would like to just -- if you could keep in there in G that working with staff to find some pedestrian access, including language that that access is meant to go through the parking lot and have kind of some sidewalk way, whether -- whether that goes, you know, through the middle or, you know, through some other location, that would be -- that -- if -- if the applicant wants to speak when we reopen the public hearing. Starman: I'm sorry. So, we can't take any more testimony. We have closed the public hearing. My apologies. No, we are done with public comment. Thank you. So, the public hearing portion is closed. So, the Commission will deliberate and make its motion. If it's not clear we can work with you from the staff perspective or otherwise. Smith: But, yeah, that's kind of where I'm at, just ensuring that -- and I -- I appreciate these -- the applicant. I'm not insinuating anything about trying to circumvent the desire of the Commission, but I guess what I'm getting at is making it clear that it's meant to go through the parking lot, rather than like a quick, you know, connection out to Innovation and, then, around to that other path. I would like for it to be somewhat of a -- kind of straight -- not straight shot unnecessarily, but from the edge of the parking lot to the Chik-Fil-A rather than around. But that's the only thing that I would kind of maybe tweak or add in there, just to clarify that that's the intention, but -- any other Commissioners have thoughts or feedback? Commissioners? Or if anyone would like to make a motion. Grace: Mr. Chairman, I will try. Smith: We will -- we will appreciate you for the effort. Grace: I make no promises. So, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File No. H-2023-0054 as presented in the staff report for hearing date of November 16th, 2023, with the following modifications: To strike the staff Condition 2-B. So, to strike -- excuse me -- 2-C. To strike staff condition 2-C in the report. To strike the word additional in 2-B. Thirdly, to strike the first sentence in 2-G. However -- but instruct the applicant to continue to work with staff to address the pedestrian circulation. To strike in condition six language that indicates the applicant needs to submit the property boundary adjustment prior to submitting the certificate of zoning compliance. So, strike the condition that it needs to be prior to submitting the zoning -- the certificate of zoning compliance. That's number four. And, finally, strike the first sentence in condition number seven related to the conceptual elevations and I think that is it, if I got those correct. Smith: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Rivera: I think on -- just to clarify, Commissioner Grace, condition number six is to remove that and, then, change it to -- to read prior to issuance of -- of occupancy of -- like certificate of occupancy of moving in; correct? And that would -- F39] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 37 of 46 Starman: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I was going to make a similar comment. The applicant's suggestion was to be prior to the issuance of a building permit. So, that would -- may be your trigger event. Instead of certificate of zoning compliance it would be issuance of a building permit. Rivera: Yeah. Hersh: Mr. Chair and Commissioners, that's correct. Grace: So, if I can amend that motion with respect to the requested change to item six -- condition six that should read submit the property boundary adjustment, et cetera, prior to submission of -- did you say building permit? Starman: Yes. Correct. Grace: Then that's how that would read. Starman: Maybe instead of submitting it would be issuance of. Prior to issuance -- Grace: Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Rivera: I will second the motion. Smith: All right. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor, please, say aye. Seeing none opposed the motion passes. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing for Crowley Park Subdivision (H-2023-0053) by Riley Planning Services, located at 4135 W. Cherry Ln. A. Request: Annexation of 1.002 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Combined Preliminary/Final Plat consisting of 4 residential building lots and 1 common lot (including one existing home to remain). Smith: With that I would like to lastly thank you all for your patience in the audience. would like to open up Item No. H-2023-0053 for Crowley Park Subdivision. We will begin with the staff report. Hersh: Alrighty. Moving on to Crowley Park Subdivision. The applicant is here to present their project. The application submitted is annexation and preliminary plat. The site consists of 1.002 acres of land, zoned R-1 in Ada county, located at 4135 West Cherry Lane. There is no history on the property. The Comprehensive Plan FLUM F40 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 38 of 46 designation is medium density residential and the summary of the request from the applicant is annexation of one -- again, a little over an acre of land with an R-8 zoning district, preliminary plat consisting of four residential building lots, including one existing home to remain and one common lot. The subject property is an enclave surrounded by existing single family residential homes. The site abuts an R-8 development to the west. To the south. To the east is an R-4 development and to the north R-2, R-4 for developments. The subject property is designated as medium density residential in the future land use map, consistent with the approved development to the west. The applicant proposes, again, a four lot subdivision for single family residential detached home and one single family detached home at a gross density of 3.99 units an acre, which is with the -- within the desired density range for the medium density residential designation. A legal description of the annexation and exhibit map where this is included, the property is within the -- the city's area of city impact boundary. A preliminary plat and conceptual building elevations were -- were submitted showing how the property is proposed to be subdivided and developed. The proposed lots range in size from 5,148 to 9,524 square feet. The subdivision is proposed -- proposed to develop in one phase. The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards in the UDC table for the R-8 zoning district. The plat appears to comply with the standards in the district, except for the front porch on the existing home, which encroachers a little more than two feet in the required setbacks. Per the UDC lots taking access from a common drive do not require street frontage. Access to the property is proposed from Cherry Lane from a common driveway on Lot 1, Block 1. Direct access from Cherry Lane for Lot 2, Block 1 , is prohibited. Interior Lots 3, 4, 5 at Block 1 are proposed to take access to via the common drive, meeting the -- those requirements in the UDC. Common driveway shall serve a maximum of four dwelling units. In no case shall three -- more than three dwelling units be located on one side of the driveway. The applicant is proposing four dwelling units take access off the main common drive. All four dwelling units are located on one side of the driveway. However, three dwelling units are taking access via a side common driveway that connects to the main common driveway. The director has determined -- determined that the proposed orientation of the dwelling -- of the units off the side of common drive meets the intent of the UDC code. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accordance with the UDC for single family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Staff will confirm compliance with these standards at the time of building permit submittal for each residence. The applicant has provided an additional three parking stalls at the end of the common drive on the southeast side of the site for overflow parking. The existing home does not meet the required number of off-street parking spaces per the UDC for a three bedroom home. Four parking spaces are required. At least two in an enclosed garage. Other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum ten foot by 20 foot parking pad. The existing home does not have an enclosed two car garage. However, the required number of parking spaces is provided via an existing carport and driveway. The applicant is proposing to enclose the carport on the northwest side with a material that matches the existing house. The carport shares a roof line with the existing home and is currently accessed from the west. Access to the carport will change to the south upon approval and completion of the subdivision site improvements once the entry point -- point to the carport is shifted to the F41 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 39 of 46 south and the common drive is constructed. The applicant is also proposing to add a fence to provide additional screening from the carport from West Cherry Lane. The existing home is recognized as nonconforming due to the off-street parking requirements in the UDC. Per the UDC no existing structure containing a nonconforming use may be enlarged, extended, constructed, reconstructed, moved or structurally altered, except through approval of a conditional use permit -- permit. As a result of the nonconformity the applicant is required to apply for a conditional use permit for any future expansions on the property. There are -- there is -- a 25 foot landscape buffer is required along West Cherry Lane in accordance with the UDC. The landscape plan submitted depicts a 20 foot landscape buffer along West Cherry Lane that includes four existing trees. The applicant is proposing a water conserving design aimed to reduce the landscape buffer to 20 feet in width. However, the proposed design lacks features, like boulders, rocks or permeable hardscape material, such as pavers and flagstones and water conserving grasses. The design should incorporate plants and trees that thrive in climates with approximately ten to 12 inches of annual rainfall. Staff recommends that the applicant revise the landscape plan to comply with the requirements for the water conserving design in accordance with the UDC. Cherry Lane is currently improved with an existing seven foot wide attached concrete sidewalk abutting the site in accordance with the UDC standards. Staff is not recommending that the sidewalk be replaced. Utilities connection to city and water, sewerage and services is required in accordance with the UDC. The existing home is proposed to remain on Lot 2, Block 1, is required to connect to city water and services within 60 days of becoming available. Street lighting is also required to be installed in accordance with the city's adopted standards specifications and ordinance -- ordinances. All fencing is required to comply with the standards and the applicant is proposing fencing in front of the carport for screening, provided there is not a conflict with the layout of the fire hydrant services. A detail of the fencing should be provided with the final plat and the pressurized irrigation system -- the underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided to each lot within the subdivision as set forth within the UDC. Given that the property possesses irrigation rights and access surface rights -- should be used as a primary source over the groundwater well in accordance with the regulations of Settlers Irrigation District. Settlers Irrigation District does not permit the exclusion of water rights to the subject parcel. The building elevations. Three conceptual building elevations were submitted that demonstrate what future homes in this development will look like. Variations of one story homes with three car garages are proposed. The submitted elevations depict a number of different architectural and design styles and field materials of lap siding, different color and access -- accent roof profiles and stone. Currently there is no written testimony on this project and staff recommends approval of the annexation and preliminary plat subject to the conditions in the staff report and that concludes staff's presentation and I stand for any questions. Smith: Would the applicant like to come up? Constantikes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record Penelope Constantikes representing the property owner Luke Gilbert. My address is Post Office Box 405, Boise, Idaho. 83701. As you know the application is for annexation, zoning F42 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 40 of 46 and a preliminary plat and it's -- as you know, four detached single family residences with one existing and three new building lots and future homes. And it is consistent with the surrounding residential development. The proposed density as provided in the staff report is 3.99 units per acre and it does provide a variety of lot sizes. One access point to West Cherry Lane is proposed and has been approved by ACHD. Two of the homes face north with the access from the north. One home faces south with access from the south and one home faces north with access from the east. We are reducing the landscape buffer by 20 percent to allow retention of the front porch area and we will be using the water reducing -- water conserving landscape plan ordinance that staff has already referenced. We have reviewed both the Meridian and the ACHD staff reports and are in agreement with the findings and conclusions. The engineer and I met with Public Works for detailed discussions recently about the best location for the water lines, the hydrant service line and sewer service with required easements. The outcome of the meeting was that the hydrant will be located at the northeast corner or near the northeast corner of the site with the benefit of being able to hopefully preserve the two mature trees that are along the Cherry Lane frontage. Just a few highlights. Crowley Park will add three additional p.m. peak hour trips to West Cherry Lane, which is not very many. The site layout includes three guest parking spaces, as staff has already indicated and I believe we may possibly be able to add a few more at the west and of the fire turnaround area. We will check on that as we move through the process. Pedestrian access to West Cherry Lane is -- will be provided along the west side of the existing residents to keep that access away from vehicle access. A streetlight is shown at the northeast corner of the site, although it's a little hard to see. These homes are intended for the middle, which is also frequently referred to as a workforce housing and the middle are essential professionals, such as school teachers, fire departments staff, police and nursing staff. Crowley Park will provide new home options in an existing and mature neighborhood with full-sized trees, which we think is a good thing. The site redesign pairs side yards with existing backyards for the neighbors to the west and the side yards don't get much use and so we thought that this would be a great way to preserve their backyard privacy. I would like to offer some additional details regarding the carport on the existing residence. The carport will be changed as -- as staff has indicated to the south and the north and west sides of the existing carport will be fully clad with siding that will complement the existing residence. From the street it will appear like it's just a garage. The layout for the existing residence includes four parking spaces, two which will be in an enclosed carport and two additional spaces will be provided on the apron area to accommodate two additional parking spaces, which will be a minimum of ten by 20 feet. The landscape plan can now be updated with the water conserving design after our meeting with Public Works and the most -- and that meeting provided us with the most efficient path forward with utility lines and the fire hydrant located in the northeast corner of the site. The fire department is aware of this hydrant change and my understanding is the location will work well for fire emergency services. The change in the location of the water service for the hydrant will allow fencing to screen the west side of the front lot. That was a problem before we changed the waterline location. And there won't be any fencing location -- or, excuse me, any fencing conflict. Like I said, we anticipate that both the mature trees will be retained along the front edge, but we will continue to work with Public Work staff as needed. The F43 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 41 of 46 project narrative discusses retention of the existing well for site irrigation. The front lot is already irrigated off the well. Surface water delivery in this area is a private lateral, which Settlers Irrigation District does not manage. According to the neighbors this parcel never used surface water. I have tried to contact the water master multiple times with no success, although Settlers has been very helpful. We would like to work with staff on provision of irrigation and the property owner would like to retain the existing well as the irrigation option -- as an irrigation option as it may be needed. With that I would be happy to stand for questions or discussion with the Commission and we respectfully request a recommendation of approval for Crowley Park Subdivision. Thank you for your time and attention. Smith: Commissioners have any questions for the applicant? All right. Grace: Mr. Chairman, can I just get the applicant to clarify -- I probably misheard it, but the comment about the light. Was there a traffic light did you say in the northwest corner or -- can you just clarify that? I was taking notes and I missed that. Hersh: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, no, it's a streetlight. Grace: Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Smith: All right. Thank you. Constantikes: Thank you. Smith: Open up public testimony. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to speak? Lomeli: We do have -- it looks like five signed up. The first on the list is Sarah Cartwright. Smith: You don't want to -- okay. Can we get the next on the list. Lomeli: Judy Cartwright. Smith Oh, just in support. Okay. Yeah. If you want to come up and -- you can ask a question. That's fine. Cartwright: I'm Judy Cartwright. 4365 West Cherry Lane. The subdivision that went in next to us did not provide a new fence along the whole side and I just wondered if this will have new fencing on both sides? Smith: All right. We have the applicant to come up at the end of testimony. Sorry. Actually, I do have one question. Could you clarify if you are here -- the other names on the list of support or opposition regarding the project? F44 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 42 of 46 Cartwright: I -- I support it. Is that what you are wondering? Smith: Yes. I just wanted to clarify. Cartwright: I was wondering about the fence. Smith: Yeah. I assumed support, but I figured I would -- for the record that would clarify. Thank you. Lomeli: I have a Bill Crossfield. Coffield? Smith: Just come up and give your name and, then, your address. That would be great. Canfield: Bill Canfield. I live at 4079 West Cherry Lane to the east. I own the property to the east. There is a lateral -- irrigation lateral that feeds off of there. That's what I feed on to. I water my property with that. That actually goes into the back of this existing property that they are going to build. So, I'm just concerned about my water access and everything as far as accessing that. Smith: Okay. Canfield: Plus my -- the fence is on my property. That would be just to the east. That's a wooden -- wooden fence now. I don't know if there is going to be another fence or not. But, anyway, I do approve of this, so -- Smith: Okay. Thank you. That's a question that we can make sure to ask the applicant as well when they come back up. Lomeli: We -- the next on the list is an Esther Burgoyne? I'm sorry I'm pronouncing that -- Burgoyne: Yes. Thank you. Smith: Just get your name and address as well. Grace: Mr. Chairman, can we just get them to speak into the microphone. I'm having a hard time hearing multiple folks. Smith: Absolutely. Grace: Thank you. Burgoyne: So, my name is Esther Burgoyne and I live at 1538 Willow Tree and so I'm right on the west side of -- basically my backyard will be right in the middle of this whole thing and I don't have any problem with the -- with the whole housing and stuff back F45] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 43 of 46 there. The only concern I have is there is a tree right on the corner that's existing that the branches and the roots are going right into the fence and under the fence and over the fence and so I think that tree really needs to be either trimmed down or taken out. And, then, the other concern is the fence along the whole way is vinyl on -- on the west side and it's wood fence on the east side and even the vinyl side is really starting to deteriorate at the bottom and so I'm just wondering if all this new construction and stuff going in will harm the fence even more to where, you know, it will like fall apart or anything. But other than those two little items I have no problem at all with the housing coming in. Smith: All right. Thank you very much. Have anyone else signed up to testify? Lomeli: I do have a Sharon Gooding. Smith: Sharon Gooding. Not here. I did see a couple of people leave, so that might have been -- anyone else? Lomeli: No one else. Smith: All right. I think that covered it. Is there anyone else -- sir, if you would like to come testify at all or -- okay. So, would the applicant like to come back up. Constantikes: Mr. Chairman, would you like me to reintroduce myself? Smith: Just your name and address again. Constantikes: Penelope Constantikes. Post Office Box 405, Boise, Idaho. 83701 . I'm not a hundred percent sure where Judy is relative to the project site. Is that something that staff could show me? Smith: Sorry. It could -- unfortunately not -- Starman: First of all, if the applicant is willing to yield some time to -- and, then, if you would reintroduce yourself and, then, if you want to -- thank you. Cartwright: Judy Cartwright. 4365 West Cherry Lane, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. We are R-2 on the map. So, it's not -- it's a ways down, but what I'm saying is I'm just concerned that -- for the people in this new subdivision that they get a new fence, because when the subdivision went in right next to us probably four years ago they left the old fence and it's deteriorated and -- and falling down and I don't want that to happen in this new subdivision. Smith: Thank you. If I could get your name and address that would be great. Thank you, sir. F46 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 44 of 46 Gilbert: Good evening, everybody. My name is Luke Gilbert at 6245 South Hill Farm Way, south -- south Meridian. As far as the fence goes, it's currently fenced. The fence is in pretty good condition actually. It's a cedar fence pretty well maintained. As we get into the project I haven't yet considered replacing the fence and I'm not saying I'm opposed to it, it's just more -- the fence that we have up currently is cedar, in good condition, relatively well maintained and I think until we get into the project it would be hard for me to commit to that. Smith: Okay. Thank you. Gilbert: Was there anything else -- Smith: I did here -- there were some other questions about tree trim removal and irrigation water access and existing fencing harm. Is there any -- Gilbert: Perfect. Yeah. Well, to the tree trimming piece, the arborist is going to dictate what we can and can't remove. I don't know if this tree falls within a permission to remove. We are going to -- we have -- we have actually taken a couple of bids from arborist on trees on the property, because they are very large trees and they -- they do need some attention over there. We have just been reluctant to move into it before we have permission to do so. So, the trees are on our radar. Smith: Okay. Constantikes: Mr. Chairman, Penelope Constantikes. Post Office Box 405, Boise, Idaho. The gentleman before me is the property owner. The last item that was brought up was water access, I believe, and as we all know Idaho statute prohibits anyone from ever interfering with water delivery. So, the gentleman to our east will -- of course, we will be preserving his water access. We have no reason to disrupt it. So, other than that I think we have covered everything. Are there any other questions that I can answer? Smith: I don't personally have any. Do any other Commissioners have any questions? Rivera: No. Smith: All right. I think -- I think we are good. Thank you. Constantikes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Smith: With that I will take a motion to close the public hearing. Rivera: I make a motion to close the public hearing. Stoddard: Second. F47 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 45 of 46 Smith: I have a motion and a second. Can I get all ayes -- or all ayes in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right. Motion passes. Motion carries. Sorry about that. Thanks, folks, for your patience. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Smith: Any discussion, deliberation? Any thoughts from fellow Commissioners? Grace: Mr. Chairman, I would just say that it's -- you know, we use the term a lot, but it's a little bit of an in-fill project and these are never -- you know -- you know, they are -- they are sort of dictated sometimes by other -- by other factors. So, I get that. I like the idea of their -- sort of their target homeowner and I think that's a great -- you know, to the extent that they have too much control over that. I'm glad there is housing for those -- for those types of folks. It sounds like the -- the trees and the fencing, you know, they are trying to maintain what they can and it sounds like they are going to be sensitive to the concerns of those around them. So, yeah, I am in favor. Smith: Commissioner Rivera. Rivera: I am in agreement with Commissioner Grace and I do -- the main thing here is I do appreciate the owner that's going to be -- as they move forward keep an eye on the fence and -- and the tree removal and making sure that -- that what needs to be done will get done. Smith: I would echo that. It seems like concerns kind of are around -- mostly around -- around kind of marginal stuff, so, you know, it seems like with -- regarding the application itself I think it's -- it's close to as good of an in-fill project we can get in terms of, you know, not being some -- some wonky crazy thing. So, I like the -- like what the -- what the applicant is trying to do here. Just, yeah, with the -- you know, maintaining, you know, a close ear to neighbors and concerns and all that good stuff. I like this a lot. I will take a motion if anyone -- Rivera: I will make a motion here. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File No. H-2023-0053 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 16th, 2023. Grace: Second. Smith: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please, say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Smith: All right. It looks like that time of day that I will be looking for one more motion. Rivera: I make a motion to adjourn the meeting. 48 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 46 of 46 Grace: Second. Smith: Have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please, say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, everyone. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:35 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED Andy Seal, Chairman 12 17 12023 DATE APPROVED ATTEST CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F49 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the November 02, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 2,2023 Page 36 of 36 Smith: And as part of that I would like to -- I don't know what the official word is, but the chairmanship is now yours again. Yeah. Lorcher: Back in the room. So, are we going for one more motion? Smith: I do believe we are. Lorcher: All right. One more motion for the evening. Smith: Madam Chair, I move to adjourn. Lorcher: Do I have a second? Is that a second? Stoddard: Second. Lorcher: Okay. All those in favor to adjourn say aye. Any opposed? Meeting adjourned. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:28 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED 11-16-2023 Andy Seal Chair ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 16, 2023 Item #2: Meridian OZ (H AERIAL MAPZONING MAPFUTURE LAND USE MAP Conditional Use Permit-0048) -2023- R-15 R-8 R-4 RUT O-T R-15 INE P PIN E PINE LegendLegendLegend C-N L-O R-8R1 R-2 \[\[\[ Project LocationProject LocationProject Location Old C-G L-O RUT O-T R1 Town M1 LOCUST GROVE LOCUST GROVE LOCUST GROVE I-L General O-T C-G Industrial RUT L-OC-G I-L C-G FRANKLINFRANKLINFRANKLIN RUT R6 R-40 R-15 MU-C R1 C-N RUT RUT R-15 C-C Medium Commercial C-G Density R-4 Residential RUT Civic R6 MU-N R-8 R1 I-L Site PlanLandscape Plan Open Space Exhibit(Revised) Conceptual Building Elevations (not approved) Item #3: Chick AERIAL MAPZONING MAPFUTURE LAND USE MAP 0054-2023-HA Conditional Use Permit-fil- Recommended Pedestrian Walkway Site PlanRevise Site Plan Landscape Plan Revised Landscape Plan Conceptual Elevations Item #4: Crowley Park Subdivision AERIAL MAPZONING MAPFUTURE LAND USE MAP 0053-2023-HAnnexation and Preliminary Plat– Annexation ExhibitPreliminary Plat Landscape Plan Conceptual Building Elevations Changes to Agenda: None Item #2: Meridian OZ (H-2023-0048) Application(s):  Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 2.39 acres of land, zoned R-40, located at 1475 E. Franklin Rd. at the SWC of Franklin & Locust Grove. History: This property was annexed in 1999 with a DA that entitles the property to development with MFR apartments at a density of 15.6 units/acre. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use – Community (MU-C) Summary of Request: A CUP is proposed for a MFR development consisting of 36 dwelling units in (8) 3-story structures on 2.39 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. All of the units are proposed to have 2-bedrooms each. The gross density for the development is 15 units/acre consistent with that approved in the existing DA and with the guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan for MU-C designated areas. Access is proposed via S. Locust Grove Rd.; no access is proposed or allowed via E. Franklin Rd. Staff recommends a cross- access/ingress-egress easement and driveway with a pedestrian walkway is provided to the property to the south for future interconnectivity. Staff also recommends a cross-access/ingress-egress easement and driveway is provided to the property to the west for interconnectivity and access via Franklin Rd. Off-street parking is proposed in excess of UDC standards. Based on 36 2-bedroom units, a minimum of 75 parking spaces are required; a total of 76 spaces are proposed. A minimum of 9,000 s.f. (or 0.21 acre) of common open space is required that meets UDC standards for such. Of that area, at least one common grassy area of at least 5,000 s.f. is required to be integrated into the site design allowing for general activities by all ages. An open space exhibit was submitted that depicts approximately twice as much open space as required exceeding UDC standards. A minimum of (3) site amenities are required to be provided; enclosed bike storage, a community garden, a pathway, and children’s playground are proposed in accord with UDC standards. Schematic renderings were submitted for the proposed 3-story structures as shown; building materials are anticipated to consist of a mix of stucco, siding and mixed metals for accents with a neutral color scheme throughout. To provide variation in profile, Staff recommends the buildings incorporate modulation. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the ASM. Written Testimony: Brad Banks, Intermountain Wood Products – in opposition of this development on the basis of traffic concerns at the intersection. Staff Recommendation: Approval Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2023-0048, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 16, 2023, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2023-0048, as presented during the hearing on November 16, 2023, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2023-0048 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #3: Chick-fil-A (H-2023-0054) Application(s):  Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 2.36 acres of land, zoned C-G, located at 602 S. Vanguard Way. History: H-2020-0074 MDA, PP, RZ (DA#2021-089157); FP-2022-0009; PS A-2022-0188. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial Summary of Request: Conditional Use Permit request for a new approximate 5,872-square foot Chick-fil-A including a dual drive-thru, full fire escape lane, and two exterior drive-thru canopies located within 300 feet of an existing drive-through facility, residential district, and existing residence. The proposed drive-through establishment is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11, Drive-Through Establishment. All establishments providing drive-through service are required to identify the stacking lane, menu, and speaker location (if applicable), and window location on the site plan. The site plan is also required to demonstrate safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the site and between adjacent properties. Staff finds that the parking stalls to the north or south should be restricted for employee parking only to maximize pedestrian safety. Additionally, Staff recommends that the Applicant incorporate a pedestrian walkway from the easternmost parking area, through the middle of the parking lot, leading to the front of the building to facilitate safe pedestrian access. The proposed site layout for the restaurant includes a dual drive-through lane with space to queue 37 vehicles and a third fire escape lane provided on the outside of the entire length of the drive-through. The drive-through itself starts at the north side of the building and exits at the south side, facing S. Innovation Lane. However, Staff has some safety concerns regarding the entry to the drive- through from the north. At the entrance of the drive-through, vehicles will be entering/exiting the drive-through while vehicles are attempting to park or back out of the parking stalls along the northern boundary. Staff recommends that the entry/exit on the north should be designated as” entrance only” for the drive-through to clearly mark and direct traffic flow. Further, staff recommends that the Applicant install additional signage and parking lot striping to clearly mark and guide traffic safely throughout the site. Chick-fil-A operations utilize a drive-through system featuring a door with a built-in pickup window. Additionally, employees serve customers as food runners within designated areas in or around the drive-through lanes. Customers have multiple options for placing orders in the drive-through. They can either use digital menu boards with speakers or directly engage with employees equipped with handheld computer pads and portable receipt printers. Employees are equipped to take all methods of payment in the drive-through area. Once the order is placed using one of the above methods, the customer will proceed to move forward in the queue approaching the order pick-up area at the end of the drive-through. At this point, an employee will then hand or a runner will deliver the customer their order to their vehicle and direct cars safely through the drive-through exit. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Development of the site shall comply with the dimensional standards of the C-G zoning district in UDC Table 11-2B-3. Staff has reviewed the proposed plans and building elevations and they comply with the required standards. The building is currently located on multiple property lines. Staff recommends that the Applicant submit a property boundary adjustment to combine all three properties into one property (parcels #R8483120120, R8483120040, R8483120060) prior to submitting for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC). Access (UDC 11-3A-3): The site plan includes three access points from S. Innovation Lane, a private street located on the eastern side of the property. Vehicles accessing the site can do so from the northeast, east, or southeast and have the option to park in the lot in front of building or proceed northwest to one of the first two inner 10' drive-through lanes. These lanes are equipped with menu boards for ordering and allow for exiting back to the drive aisle in the southeast direction. The third lane, farthest from the building, serves as an escape lane, leading to the drive aisle along the south side of the building. To improve traffic flow and minimize confusion, it is recommended that the first entrance/exit at the NEC should be an “entrance only” as mentioned previously. NOTE: While Staff recommends approval of three drive-through lanes for this project to accommodate the volume of business that Chick-fil-A generates, Commission ultimately has the authority to determine whether it is appropriate for this project. Parking (UDC 11-3C): A minimum of one (1) off-street parking space is required per 250 square feet (s.f.) of gross floor area. Based on the 5,872-square-foot restaurant, a minimum of 23 parking spaces are required. A total of 96 parking spaces are proposed, exceeding UDC standards. A minimum of one (1) bicycle parking space must be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G; bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Bicycle parking is shown on the plans submitted with this application that meet the requirements. The Applicant has provided a detail of the bicycle rack on the revised landscape plan; however, the proposed bible rack does not meet the thirty-four (34) inches in height required by the UDC. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Street buffer: The street buffer along S. Ten Mile Road and S. Vanguard Way was constructed with the improvements for the Ten Mile Creek Subdivision No. 1 for the common area site improvements. The buffer along S. Ten Mile Road is required to be 35-feet wide as part of the entryway corridor in accordance with UDC 11-3B-7C.f. The Applicant has submitted a revised landscape plan that looks to meet the UDC requirements. The revised plan will be included with the CZC submittal. Parking lot: Landscaping is required in the parking lot per the standards in UDC 11-3B-8C.1. Several planters within the parking lot are missing trees and a planter is missing adjacent to the trash enclosure. Additionally, it appears that a section of the central landscape island that runs along Innovation Lane does not look to meet the 5-foot width requirement. Staff recommends increasing the size of the planter island adjacent to Innovation Lane by removing a parking stall and adding the required trees in accordance with UDC 11- 3B-8. The Applicant has submitted a revised landscape plan to address the missing trees, increasing the size of the landscape planter along Innovation Lane, and adding an additional planter adjacent to the trash enclosure in accordance with UDC 11-3B-8. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed structure. Building materials consist of stucco, parapet metal wall coping, thin brick, metal awnings, and glazing. The proposed conceptual elevations are not approved. Final design is required to comply with the adopted TM Crossing Design Guidelines. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions and findings included in the Staff Report. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2023-0054, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 16, 2023, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2023-0054, as presented during the hearing on November 16, 2023, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2023-0054 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4: Crowley Park (H-2023-0053) Application(s):  Annexation  Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.002 acres of land, zoned R1 in Ada County, located at 4135 W. Cherry Lane. History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential (MDR) Summary of Request: Annexation of 1.002 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district, Preliminary Plat consisting of 4 residential building lots (including one existing home to remain) and one (1) common lot for Crowley Park Subdivision. The subject is an enclave surrounded by existing single-family residential homes. The subject site abuts an R-8 development to the west and south, to the east is an R-4 development, and to the north are two R-4 developments. The subject property is designated as Medium Density Residential on the future land use map consistent with the approved development to the west. The Applicant proposes a 4-lot subdivision for single-family residential detached homes and one existing single-family detached home at a gross density of 3.99 units per acre, which is within the desired density range of the MDR designation. A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included. This property is within the City’s Area of City Impact boundary. A preliminary plat and conceptual building elevations were submitted showing how the property is proposed to be subdivided and developed. The proposed use and density of the development are consistent with the MDR FLUM designation. Proposed lots range in size from 5,148 to 9,524 square feet (s.f.) (or 0.12 to 0.22 acres). The subdivision is proposed to develop in one phase as shown. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. The proposed plat appears to comply with the dimensional standards of the district, except for the front porch on the existing home which encroaches more than two feet into the required setback. Per UDC 11-2A-3B.3, lots taking access from a common drive do not require street frontage. Access: Access is proposed from W. Cherry Lane from a common driveway on Lot 1, Block 1. Direct lot access from W. Cherry Lane for Lot 2, Block 1 is prohibited. The interior Lots 3, 4, 5, Block 1 are proposed to take access via a common drive to W. Cherry Lane, meeting the street access requirements of UDC 11-3A-3A. Common Driveways (UDC 11-6C-3D): Common driveways shall serve a maximum of four (4) dwelling units. In no case shall more than three (3) dwelling units be located on one (1) side of the driveway. The Applicant is proposing four (4) dwelling units take access off the main common driveway, all four (4) dwelling units are also located on one (1) side of the driveway. However, three (3) dwelling units are taking access via a side common drive that connects to the main common drive. The Director has determined that the proposed orientation of the dwelling units off the side common drive meets the intent of the UDC code. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single- family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Staff will confirm compliance with these standards at the time of building permit submittal for each residence. The Applicant has provided an additional three (3) parking stalls at the end of the common drive on the southeast side of the site for overflow parking. The existing home does not meet the required number of off-street parking spaces per UDC Table 11-3C-6 for a three (3) bedroom home; four (4) parking spaces are required, at least 2 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10-foot by 20-foot parking pad. The existing home does not have an enclosed two-car garage; however, the required number of parking spaces is provided via an existing carport and driveway. The Applicant is proposing to enclose the carport on the north and west side with siding material to match the existing house. The carport shares a roofline with the existing home and is currently accessed from the west; access to the carport will change to the south upon approval and completion of the subdivision site improvements once the entry point to the carport is shifted to the south and the common drive is constructed. The Applicant is also proposing to add a fence to provide additional screening of the carport from W. Cherry Lane. The existing home is recognized as non-conforming due to the off-street parking requirements in UDC 11-3C-6. Per UDC 11-1B-4, no existing structure containing a nonconforming use may be enlarged, extended, constructed, reconstructed, moved, or structurally altered except through the approval of a conditional use permit. As a result of the non- conformity, the Applicant is required to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for any future expansions on the property. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): A twenty-five foot landscape buffer is required along W. Cherry Lane in accord with UDC 11-3B-7. The landscape plan submitted depicts a 20-foot landscape buffer along W. Cherry Lane that includes four (4) existing trees. The Applicant has proposed a water-conserving design aimed to reduce the required landscape buffer to 20-feet in width. However, the proposed design lacks features like boulders, rocks, and/or permeable hardscape materials such as pavers and flagstones, and water conserving grasses. The design should incorporate plants and trees that thrive in climates with approximately ten (1) to twelve (12) inches of annual rainfall. Staff recommends that the Applicant revise the landscape plan to comply with the requirements for a water-conserving design in accordance with UDC 11-3B-5.2.O). Sidewalks (11-3A-17): Cherry Lane is improved with an existing 7-foot wide attached concrete sidewalk abutting the site in accord with UDC standards. Staff is not recommending that this sidewalk be replaced with and 7-foot detached sidewalk. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. The existing home proposed to remain on Lot 2, Block 1 is required to connect to City water and sewer service within 60 days of it becoming available as set forth in MCC 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. The Applicant is proposing fencing in front of the carport for screening provided there is not a conflict with the proposed layout of the fire hydrant service line. A detail of the fencing should be provided with the final plat. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided to each lot within the subdivision as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. Given that the property possesses irrigation rights and access, surface water rights should be used as the primary source over the groundwater well in accordance with the regulations of Settlers Irrigation District. Settlers Irrigation District does not permit the exclusion of water rights to the subject parcel. Building Elevations: Three (3) conceptual building elevations were submitted that demonstrate what future homes in this development will look like. Variations of one-story homes with a three-car garage are proposed. The submitted elevations depict a number of different architectural and design styles with field materials of lap siding, differing color accents, roof profiles, and stone Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval of the Annexation and Preliminary plat subject to the conditions in the Staff Report. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2023-0053, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 16, 2023, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2023- 0053, as presented during the hearing on November 16, 2023, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2023-0053 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) w IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Meridian OZ (H-2023-0048) by JD Planning and Consulting, located at 1475 E. Franklin Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0048 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 36 residential units on 2.39 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. I PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET a DATE: November 16, 2023 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 2 i PROJECT NAME: Meridian OZ (H-2023-0048) Y j Your Full Name Your Full Address RepresentingI wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) { If yes, please provide HOA name i 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT C�I w IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING November 16,2023 Legend DATE: 0 Project Location TO: Mayor&City Council - - � FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2023-0048 m - Meridian OZ—CUP LOCATION: 1475 E. Franklin Rd., in the NE 1/4 of -- ; Section 18,T.3N.,R.IE. (Parcel #51118110051) / - I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A Conditional Use Permit(CUP)is proposed for a multi-family development consisting of 36 dwelling units on 2.39 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Acreage 2.39 acres Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Community(MU-C) Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Use(s) Multi-family development Current Zoning R-40(High Density Residential) Proposed Zoning NA Lots(#and type;bldg/common) NA Phasing plan(#of phases) 1 Number of Residential Units(type 36 multi-family units(all 2-bedroom apartment units) of units) Density(gross&net) 15 units/acre(gross) Open Space(acres,total[%] / 0.34 acre(or 14,837 s.f.) buffer/qualified) Amenities Covered picnic area,children's play structure,pedestrian walkway,dog park with waste station,enclosed bicycle storage,community garden and exercise facilities. Page 1 Physical Features(waterways, The Cook Lateral runs along S.Locust Grove Rd. on this site. hazards,flood plain,hillside Neighborhood meeting date;#of 7/31/2023 attendees: History(previous approvals) AZ-99-005 (Development Agreement(Inst.#99121334;Ord. 848—Cobblestone Village); CUP-99-005 Cobblestone Village(expired);ROS#13695 (not approved by the City);H-2022-0073(Meridian OZ Apartments MDA&CUP— denied) B. Community Metrics Description Details Ada County Highway F_ District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action (yes/no) Traffic Impact Study No es/no Access Access is proposed via S.Locust Grove Rd.,an arterial street,at the eastern boundary of the (Arterial/Collectors/State site;no access is proposed via E.Franklin Rd.,an arterial street,at the northern boundary of Hwy/Local)(Existing the site. and Proposed) Traffic Level of Service Franklin Rd.&Locust Grove Rd.—Better than"E"(acceptable level of service is"E") Stub Driveway stubs for cross-access and interconnectivity with adjacent properties are not Street/Interconnectivity/ proposed. Cross Access Existing Road Network There are no existing internal roadways within the site. Franklin Rd.runs along the northern boundary of the site and Locust Grove Rd.runs along the eastern boundary of the site. Existing Arterial There are no existing buffers on this site. Sidewalks/Buffers Proposed Road Franklin and Locust Grove Roads are fully improved;therefore,no additional right-of-way Improvements dedication or street improvements are required. Fire Service No comments were submitted. Police Service See Section IX.D for complete comments. • Distance to Police 0.6 mile Station • Police Response 2:58 minutes(expected); 3:44 minutes(average)—Response time goal for emergencies is Time within 3-5 minutes. • Calls for Service 7,200 within a mile of the proposed development(RD—M741)—between 7/l/20 and 6/3/22) • %of calls for service atP3 CF5 0.9% %of A2 CF5 75.3% split by priority %ofn M 12.5% Of AOCFS 1 3% Page 2 Description Details Response Time and Calls for Service{CFS)by Priodty-Most frequent prianty call types: •Priority 3 calls most frequently involved In}ury Crashes,followed by Unknown Problem,and Dnmestic Dispute. •Priority 2 calls had a majority involvement consisting of Traffic Stops,Followed by calls for Code Enforcement,and Welfare Checks. •Priority 1 calls most frequently involved Illegal Parking,Citizen Assist,and Follow Up calls. • Accessibility Police access is required into each building's entry point using a multi-technology keypad if the buildings have climate-controlled access. • Specialty/resource The PD can service this development if approved as they already serve this geographic area. needs • Crimes 761 (RD—M741—between 7/l/20 and 6/30/22) • Crashes 232(RD—M741—between 7/l/20 and 6/30/22) • Other MPD can service this area if approved.For more info,see: htWs://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/PDF]010817d448-60a3-4e76-99dc- 5243e49fabe8/280047 West Ada School No comments were received on this application. District Estimated#of school aged children from this development A. Project Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend - Legend Project Location Project Location t jr Y.1 r`•r r y ■ ,-3--.' e.dium r Co a cial - ; D�TensitY� '� R i nti Civic �, es de a MU-N Page 3 Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend R'-'4 Rub'BRUT Legend 1 ;F1; I . 0 Cl�lV � L � Project Location • v 11 Project Location M1 � City Limits =L — Planned Parcels O-T C-G 0 L O C-G I-L_ UT C-G • - R6 R T C- IIII II C=C 15 117- R-4 RUT Rb R 8�� m��, -- r,-r,�C III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Jorre Delgado,Realm Venture Group- 1109 W.Main St., Ste. 700,Boise,ID 83702 B. Owner: Meridian Oz,LLC- 1109 W. Main St., Ste. 700,Boise, ID 83702 C. Agent/Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 10/31/2023 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 10/27/2023 NA Public hearing notice sign posted 11/2/2023 on site Nextdoor posting 10/27/2023 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN(HTTPS://WWW.MERIDIANCITY.ORG/COMPPLAN): Land Use: This property is designated Mixed Use-Community(MU-C)on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM). The purpose of the MU-C designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings.Non-residential Page 4 buildings in these areas tend to be larger than in Mixed Use Neighborhood(MU-N)areas,but not as large as in Mixed Use Regional(MU-R) areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to,but also walk or bike to(up to three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. Developments are encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-C plan depicted in Figure 3C. The density range desired in MU-C designated areas is 6 to 15 units per acre. The subject property, along with the property at the northeast corner of the site now owned by ACHD, was annexed(AZ-99-005)in 1999 with an R-40 zoning district and entitled to develop with a 96-unit apartment complex/multi-family development at a gross density of 15.6 dwelling units/acre. A conditional use permit(CUP-99-005)was approved for the development but later expired because the use wasn't commenced. The Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time of annexation designated this property as Mixed/Planned Use Development. The R-40 zoning district allowed densities up to 40 units per acre at that time. Although the CUP expired,the property is still entitled with zoning and allowed to develop consistent with the standards for the R-40 zoning district. The proposed multi-family development consists of 36 apartment units on 2.39 acres of land at a gross density of 15 units per acre, consistent with the use and density approved in the development agreement. Transportation: There are no collector streets planned across this site per the Master Street Map(MSM). The MSM designates the segment of Franklin Rd. abutting this site as a planned commercial arterial street; and the segment of Locust Grove Rd. abutting this site as a residential arterial. Both streets are fully improved and no additional right-of-way dedication or street improvements are required with this application. Access is proposed via S. Locust Grove Rd., a minor arterial street,at the site's east boundary; no access is proposed via E. Franklin Rd., a principal arterial street.ACHD is requiring access to be taken from Locust Grove due it's lesser classification; direct access via Franklin is prohibited. The site is located in close proximity to the Franklin/Locust Grove intersection, a major arterial signalized intersection. This site is located within one (1)mile of Valley Regional Transit's(VRT)Route 30 Pine. VRT is requesting a bus stop is provided along Locust Grove Rd.(see Section IX.H for more information). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES(https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan): Goals,Objectives, &Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) The proposed multi family apartments will contribute to the variety of housing types in the City. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer services are available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Locate higher density housing near corridors with existing or planned transit,Downtown, and in proximity to employment centers." (2.01.01H) The proposed multi family development is located adjacent to two arterial streets and in proximity to employment centers along Eagle Road. This site is located within one (1)mile of VRT's Route 30 Pine and VRT requests a new bus stop is provided along Locust Grove Rd. with this development. Page 5 • "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City."(2.01.01 G) A mix of residential housing types consisting of apartments and single-family dwellings (low-and medium-density) exist within a half mile of this site. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed multi family apartments should be compatible with existing single-family homes to the south and industrial uses to the west.A dense landscape buffer exists along the west boundary of this site, which will buffer the proposed residential use from the industrial use. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development."(3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are required to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02) This is an undeveloped property in the City. Development of this property will maximize public services. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks is required to be provided with development as proposed. • "Slow the outward progression of the City's limits by discouraging fringe area development; encourage development of vacant or underutilized parcels currently within City limits."(4.05.03B) Development of the subject vacant land, currently in the City limits, is encouraged over parcels on the fringe of the City. The development of this property will result in better provision of City services. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(CUP) History: The previous MDA & CUP application (H-2022-0073 Meridian OZApartments)for a 60-unit multi family development at a density of 25 units/acre was denied by Council due to the density not aligning with that contemplated in the existing DA and the proposed sole access via Locust Grove presenting significant traffic safety concerns with the number of units proposed only using the one access. The Council stated actions to gain approval could include reducing the number of units to be more consistent with that contemplated in the existing DA and better ingress/egress for the site. A CUP is proposed for a multi-family development consisting of 36 dwelling units in eight(8) 3-story structures on 2.39 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. All of the units are proposed to have 2- bedrooms each. The gross density for the development is 15 units/acre consistent with that approved in the existing development agreement and with the guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan for MU-C designated areas. Development Agreement(DA): The existing DA(Cobblestone Village AZ-99-005 Inst. #99121334) includes provisions for future development of this site. Staff has reviewed these provisions and included comments below and conditions of approval in Section IX in accord with these provisions. Staff has Page 6 determined the proposed development is generally consistent with the provisions in the DA and does not require a modification to accommodate the proposed development if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval herein. Existing Structures: There is an existing single-family home and accessory structure on this site that are proposed to be removed with redevelopment of the site. Access: Access is proposed via S. Locust Grove Rd.;no access is proposed or allowed via E. Franklin Rd. The existing curb cut on Franklin Rd. should be removed with development and curbing extended across the driveway. The Police Dept. recommends the access via Locust Grove is restricted to right-in/right-out for safety reasons. The ACHD report does not include a restriction on access. If the Commission/City Council agrees with the Police Dept.'s recommendation, a provision requiring such should be included. The Police Dept. also recommends traffic calming is provided within the site in the north/south drive aisle to slow traffic for tenant/pedestrian safety. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring such. Because this property and the property to the south is designated MU-C on the FLUM and no local street access exists to this site or the adjacent property,Staff recommends a cross- access/ingress-egress easement and driveway with a pedestrian walkway is provided to the property to the south for future interconnectivity in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. Staff also recommends a cross-access/ingress-egress easement and driveway is provided to the property to the west at 50 S.Adkins Way for future interconnectivity; the site/landscape plan should be revised accordingly.Note: There is a strip of land between this property and the 50 S. Adkins Way property owned by the Stonebridge Business Owner's Association; therefore, consent would need to be obtained from that owner in the future in order for access to be provided from either side. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 : There are existing attached sidewalks along E. Franklin Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. Typically, detached sidewalks are required along arterial streets;however,because these sidewalks are still in good condition, Staff does not recommend they are removed and reconstructed as detached sidewalks at this time. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8& 11-3B-12C1: There are no multi-use pathways designated on the Pathways Master Plan for this site. An internal 6-foot wide pedestrian walkway is proposed along the northeast perimeter boundary of the development adjacent to the existing ACHD storm drainage pond at the corner of Franklin and Locust Grove Roads,which could be reduced to 5-feet in width. Landscaping should be provided along the internal pathway in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C; the landscape plan should be revised accordingly. Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-I8): Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. Drainage swales should not be within the landscape setbacks along Franklin and Locust Grove Roads as set forth in the development agreement. Fencing(UDC 11-3A- : All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. A 6-foot tall closed vision vinyl fence is proposed along the southern boundary of the site adjacent to the existing residence in accord with the development agreement. A chain-link fence with wire strands along the top exists around the ACHD storm drainage pond to the northeast of this site. The landscape plan depicts existing fencing along the west boundary of the site; however,the chain link fence appears to Page 7 actually be located along the west boundary of the adjacent 20-foot wide property to the west—this should be verified and correctly depicted on the plans. Staff recommends the existing chain link fence around the ACHD storm drainage facility is replaced with wrought iron fencing for aesthetic reasons if determined acceptable by ACHD; move fencing in closer to the actual drainage area if agreed upon by ACHD. Lighting(UDC 11-3A-11C): The DA requires particular attention to be paid to lighting plans to ensure adjacent residential properties and the traveling public is not impacted by glare. Therefore, Staff recommends outdoor lighting comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11 C. The height of a free- standing light fixture on private property should not exceed 6-feet; streetlamps are exempt from this height restriction. Staff recommends a photometric report is submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrates complies with these standards. Signage: The DA requires signage to be limited to one(1)low-profile monument type sign near the intersection of Franklin and Locust Grove Roads.Because this development no longer incorporates property at this intersection,Staff is amenable to signage being placed near the entrance to the development on Locust Grove Rd. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Schematic renderings were submitted for the proposed 3-story structures as shown in Section VIII.D. Building materials are anticipated to consist of a mix of stucco, siding and mixed metals for accents with a neutral color scheme throughout.To provide variation in profile, Staff recommends the buildings incorporate modulation.Final design of all structures is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3): The proposed use is subject to the following standards: (Staff's analysis/comments in italic text) 11-4-3-27: MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: "B. Site Design: 1. Residential buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet(10)unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances,porches and patios,and how they impact adjacent properties. The proposed buildings shown on the site plan comply with this standard. 2. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas,waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street. The site plan depicts a trash enclosure within the perimeter buffer at the southwest corner of the site and another optional trash enclosure adjacent to the common area on the northern portion of the site, neither of which are visible from the public street. Staff recommends the trash enclosure incorporates a recycling receptacle and is located more centrally in the "optional"location rather than adjacent to the existing residence. 3. A minimum of eighty(80)square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other access ways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section,the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in section 11-5B-5 of this title. The Applicant states each patio will be roughly 80 square feet. Floor plans should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrate compliance with this standard. Page 8 4. For the purposes of this section,vehicular circulation areas,parking areas, and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space. These areas were not included in the common open space calculations for the site. 5. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate, designated and screened area. The Applicant shall comply with this requirement. 6. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title. The proposed parking meets and exceeds UDC standards per the analysis below. Based on(36)2-bedroom units, a minimum of 75 off-street parking spaces are required, including three(3) spaces for guest parking,with 36 of those in a covered carport or garage. Accessible parking is required in accord with ADA standards. A total of 87 spaces are proposed, including 12 compact spaces and 40 covered spaces,which exceeds the minimum standard by 12 spaces. Because there is sufficient area for standard vehicle spaces to be provided where the compact spaces are proposed,Staff recommends those spaces meet the standards dimensions. Based on 87 vehicle parking spaces, a minimum of three(3)bicycle parking spaces should be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Enclosed bicycle storage is proposed in four(4)of the buildings as depicted on the site plan. Staff recommends a bicycle rack, capable of holding a minimum of three(3)bicycles,is provided in the central common area for guests in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. The perimeter buffer along the west boundary and the sidewalk adjacent to parking spaces at the central common area may be widened to 7-feet where 5-feet is currently depicted and the length of the stalls reduced to 17-feet if wheel stops are not desired in parking spaces; otherwise wheel stops shall be provided to prevent vehicle overhang.No compact spaces should be provided as there is sufficient area to meet the standard parking space dimensions.Wheel stops should be added in all of the carport parking spaces to prevent vehicle overhang onto the adjacent walkway. Staff has concerns about the 14'+/-long areas at the rear of the carport parking spaces, which aren't long enough to accommodate most vehicles and don't meet the standards for compact parking spaces,being used for parking and blocking the drive aisle. Therefore, Staff recommends the planter islands are retracted to within 5-feet of the face of the structures; a wider perimeter buffer and/or parallel parking could be provided along the south side of the east/west drive aisle for guests. 7. Developments with twenty(20)units or more shall provide the following: a. A property management office. b. A maintenance storage area. c. A central mailbox location, including provisions for parcel mail, that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access. d. A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. (Ord. 18-1773,4-24-2018) The site plan depicts a leasing office, mail area in four(4) of the buildings, and a directory for the development; a maintenance storage area should be depicted on the plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Page 9 C. Common Open Space Design Requirements (UDC 11-4-3-27C): The total baseline land area of all qualified common open space shall equal or exceed ten(10)percent of the gross land area for multi- family developments of five(5)acres or more. Because the site is less than 5 acres in size at 2.39 acres, the baseline requirement does not apply. All common open space is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27C.2,4, 6 and 8. In addition to the baseline open space requirement, a minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided that meets the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27C.5, as follows: a. One hundred fifty(150) square feet for each unit containing five hundred(500) or less square feet of living area.Not applicable b. Two hundred fifty(250) square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred(500) square feet and up to one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area.All 36 units are between 1,100 and 1,200 s.f c. Three hundred fifty(350) square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area.Not applicable Per this standard, a total of 9,000 s.f. (or 0.21 acre) of qualified open space is required.All multi family projects with over 20 units are required to provide at least one (1) common grassy area integrated into the site design allowing for general activities by all ages. This area may be included in the minimum required open space total. The minimum size of the common grassy areas is 5,000 sf. This area shall increase proportionately as the number of units increase and shall be commensurate to the size of the development as determined by the decision-making body. Where this area cannot be increased due to site constraints, it may be included elsewhere in the development.A proportionate amount for the number of units proposed would be 9,000 s f. based on 250 s f.per unit(5,000 s f120 units=250 s f. —250 s f.x 36 units= 9,000 s f.). A total of 14,837 s.f. (or 0.34 acre) of common open space is proposed as shown in Section VIII.C,however, some of the areas shown do not meet the standards for qualified open space whereas others that do meet the standards were not included. The central open space area appears to be over 5,000 s.f. in size if additional qualified area is included in the calculations and should meet the requirement for a 5,000 s.f. open grassy area. A minimum of 9,000 s.f. (or 0.21 acre) of common open space,including a minimum 5,000 s.f. open grassy area,is required to be provided that complies with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27C; revise the open space exhibit in Section VIII.0 accordingly. D. Site Development Amenities: All multi-family developments shall provide for quality of life, open space, and recreation amenities to meet the particular needs of the residents as noted in UDC 11-4-3- 27D. The number of amenities shall depend on the size of the multi-family development based on the number of units. For multi-family developments between 20 and 75 units,three(3) amenities shall be provided with at least one(1) from each category. The following amenities are proposed from each of the following categories: 1)Quality of Life— enclosed bike storage;2) Open Space—a community garden; and 3)Recreation: pathway and children's playground. The proposed amenities meet the minimum standard. E. Landscaping Requirements: Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title. Additionally, all street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation that complies with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27E.2. The landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Page 10 Compliance application should depict landscaping along the street facing elevation adjacent to E. Franklin Rd. in accord with this standard,the landscaping along Locust Grove Rd appears to comply with this standard. Landscaping is required to be provided along all pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 12,C additional trees should be depicted on the landscape plan in areas that are deficient along the west side of the development. A 25 foot wide street buffer is required along E. Franklin and S. Locust Grove Roads, both arterial streets, landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-3B-7C. The DA requires a landscape setback of 35 feet to be provided beyond the required right-of-way of Franklin Rd.; the proposed plan depicts a 50'+1-landscape setback in accord with this provision. The perimeter buffers along the west and south boundaries are required to be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C.1 for parking lots.A minimum of one (1) Class II or III tree is required every 35 linear feet along with shrubs and vegetative groundcover—the landscape plan should be revised to include shrubs and calculations that demonstrate compliance with the standard. Mitigation is required for all existing trees 4-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site as set forth in UDC 11-3B-IOC.5.Include mitigation information on the landscape plan that demonstrates compliance with these standards. Staff recommends common open space areas are landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-5B and include a variety of trees, shrubs,lawn or other vegetative ground cover. The tree class should be included in the Landscape Schedule on the landscape plan. F. Maintenance and Ownership Responsibilities: All multi-family developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including,but not limited to, structures,parking,common areas,and other development features." The Applicant shall comply with this requirement,a copy of such shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within the development. G. Police access under exigent circumstances: Multifamily developments with units that take access via secured common corridors shall install and maintain a keyless entry system, or suitable alternative,to provide police access to the common corridors under exigent circumstances. The keyless entry system or alternative shall be subject to review and approval by the Meridian Police Department. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit with the conditions in Section IX. Page 11 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Proposed Site Plan - - -3 BEAST FRIWKLIM KOM Y�g19IY WW ,- F. - * ; •�•`• cawrxrrrKaxcrsuwwwr R 'I; m.K�000F s...Mar 9 _____ _ __A-1.1-u-ij I-LIP, -1-1 {_ H - -- ----- _ - SITE PLAN SCALE 1"=60' T H E KA R C H TM HE� �KAR�H SMNE WA 50�3,5� 2aill Page 12 B. Proposed Landscape Plan(date: 8/10/23) e a e . Z - - - Alt � O .��aao....e.,,m ..,,,a.o.---,,..ma`•....,.Ke��a - ____�� 3� +nam,o oeu— -- - L100 - yV��l .^- �J— ® a 0 FM --------------------------- O � • -------- ------- - L101 Page 13 LANDSCAPE NOTE m . :•. r.v.-e e.:::.:..wa w,or--. "M"" omi.«a STACK ROCK ._ ......a i......,e,.. '^ .. ... ..x..... -..r�� wimru "" � M rrn,awa ww«www xcx•cex onoue i I _ ... ... u c a ne..b�i — •o u e. x ua .. _ _ >av u '',�'• BALLS BURLAP TREE PLANTING SHRL13 PLANTING 14 z J Y 3 PLANTER ISLAND DETAIL LANDSCAPE BOULDER PLACEMENT(IYP) z LLLLI o wwamnwm.�w.m�oea. m G 1 4� 8 5 T. ..x LANDSCAPE mzwoamw NOTES 8 LJ � DETAILS 4'-'VINYL FENCE L150 Page 14 C. Qualified Open Space Exhibit(dated: 8/10/23) STACK �� EAST FRPM(LIN ROAU �m aunwwM.a I 1 �r J �o = J Y e Z AREA ■ SOFT 1L d o TDTALS E 10501755 w HAILD@EG 10246 ^ � 3 y` ® C] q Yr REQUIRE 6OPEN SPACE 13W0 Landscape: 55991 34% _ — — — _ — — - Common Spaces 1 4463 Common Space2 994 Common Spaca3 24d3 — Gommon Space 4 1198 Open Leven 5719@� ..A. __ F-104 Butler 14V 1% ..� L—si G.C,e Boiler 13H 1.51% s� inPo— Pk-Bede 10307 17-A 0 � PL1W-aeE a Q; COLOR Provided Open Space: 4W7 14%% C L102 Page 15 D. Conceptual Building Elevations &Floor Plans(NOT APPROVED) SCHEMATIC RENDERING ELEVATION FROM PARKING AREA TREKARCH TM E«��EKAA �M ,zzsMa�AOE.zo4sPo��EwA �e3�� .:r r �,- i I■ SCHEMATIC RENDERING VIEW OF REAR FACADE FACING NATURALAREA t TREKARCH,M �,�KaA ,�sM� az��EwA sos3,s.a� sa� r. r SCHEMATIC RENDERING TREKARCH„ Page 16 SCHEMATIC RENDERING TREKARCH. SCHEMATIC RENDERING vEw CF AMENi.I v AHI-A AND H,A:-. TREKARCH. a � I 1 SCHEMATICRENDERING viEW.1'III,NAN'EN I RYAN D CCvARED PARKINGAREA TREKARCH Page 17 I Il i u� o, � i 1 _= Pano Paso 0 � 1 y 4 �I - - - - - - - - D9 A-A-- I I I GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE.1/S'-1-0" 2,200 SF/FLOOR t TREKARCH,M �ErAEKAA� �sM��Ea ��EwA =o�3,s46� 3a„ EM a � i � J — o 0o w L , - -- _ , 4 — — — — — — — ------------- — I I I I I I TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN(LEVEL 2-3) SCALE.1/8'=1'-0' 2,240SF/FLOOF t TREKARCH.M �ErAEKAA� ,�sM��Ea �EwA so�3,s4a� naf„ Page 18 IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. Future development of this site shall generally comply with the provisions in the existing development agreement(AZ-99-005 Inst. #99121334) and the site plan, landscape plan, open space, site amenities and elevations submitted with this application and with the conditions listed below. 2. The multi-family development shall have an ongoing obligation to comply with the specific use standards for multi-family developments listed in UDC 11-4-3-27. 3. Floor plans shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrate compliance with the private open space standard of 80 square feet for each unit as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27B.3. 4. The multi-family development shall record a legally binding document that states the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development,including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27F. A recorded copy of said document shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within the development. 5. Provide a recycling receptacle in the trash enclosure. 6. All structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. 7. The existing curb cut via Franklin Rd. shall be removed and curbing extended across the driveway. 8. Outdoor lighting shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11 C. The height of a free- standing light fixture on private property shall not exceed 6-feet; streetlamps are exempt from this height restriction. A photometric report shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrates complies with these standards in accord with the development agreement to ensure the adjacent residential property and the traveling public isn't impacted by glare. 9. Signage is limited to one(1)low-profile monument type sign near the entry of the development on Locust Grove Road as set forth in the development agreement. 10. Drainage swales should not be within the landscape setbacks along Franklin and Locust Grove Roads as set forth in the development agreement. 11. Multifamily developments with units that take access via secured common corridors shall install and maintain a keyless entry system, or suitable alternative, to provide police access to the common corridors under exigent circumstances as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27G. The keyless entry system or alternative shall be subject to review and approval by the Meridian Police Department. 12. Revise the open space exhibit to include a minimum of 9,000 square feet(or 0.21 acre)of common open space that complies with the updated standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27C.5. A minimum common grassy area of least 5,000 square feet in area shall be provided in the central common area where the picnic area is located in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27C.4a. 13. The site and/or landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be revised, as follows: a. All transformer and utility vaults and other service areas shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27B.2. b. Depict landscaping along the foundation of building elevations that face S. Locust Grove Rd. and E. Franklin Rd. as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-2 7E.2. Page 19 c. Depict a bicycle rack, capable of holding a minimum of three(3)bicycles,in the central common area for guests in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. d. Depict a berm or constructed barrier at least four(4) feet in height along E. Franklin Rd. with a break in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27C.7. e. Internal common open space areas shall be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-5B and include a variety of trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative ground cover. f. Depict landscaping within the 5-feet on both sides of the internal pathway in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. Include calculations to demonstrate compliance in the Landscape Requirements table. g. Verify if fencing exists along the west boundary of this site or along the west boundary of the adjacent 20-foot wide property to the west—correctly depict the location on the plan. h. The perimeter buffer along the west boundary and the sidewalk adjacent to parking spaces at the central common area may be widened to 7-feet where 5-feet is currently depicted and the length of the stalls reduced to 17-feet if wheel stops are not desired in parking spaces; otherwise wheel stops shall be provided to prevent vehicle overhang.No compact spaces shall be provided as there is sufficient area to meet the standard parking space dimensions. i. Depict trees and shrubs along with vegetative groundcover within the perimeter buffers adjacent to parking or other vehicular use areas along the west and south boundaries of the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C.1. Include calculations to demonstrate compliance in the Landscape Requirements table. j. Include tree classes in the Plant Schedule on the landscape plan. k. Mitigation is required for all existing trees 4-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site as set forth in UDC 11-3B-IOC.S. Include mitigation information on the landscape plan that demonstrates compliance with these standards. 1. Depict a cross-access/ingress-egress easement and driveway with a pedestrian walkway to the property to the south for future interconnectivity in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. A copy of the recorded easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within the development. in. Depict a cross-access/ingress-egress easement and driveway to the property to the west at 50 S. Adkins Way for interconnectivity. A copy of the recorded easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within the development. n. Depict new wrought iron fencing to replace the existing chain link fencing around the ACHD storm drainage facility if determined acceptable by ACHD; move fencing in closer to the actual drainage area if agreed upon by ACHD. o. Depict a bus stop along Locust Grove Rd. as required by Valley Regional Transit. p. Retract the planter islands to within 5-feet of the face of the carports;provide a wider perimeter buffer and/or parallel parking for guests along the south side of the east/west drive aisle. q. Depict modulation in the placement of the structures for a variety in profile. r. Depict traffic calming within the site in the north/south drive aisle to slow traffic for tenant/pedestrian safety as recommended by the Police Dept. s. Relocate the trash enclosure from the southwest corner of the site to the"optional"location more central to the development and away from the existing residence. Page 20 t. Depict wheel stops in all of the carport parking spaces to prevent vehicle overhang onto the adjacent walkway. 10. A conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two (2)years unless otherwise approved by the city. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground.Upon written request and filing by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with subsection (F)(1) of this section, the director may authorize a single extension of time to commence the use not to exceed one (1)two-year period. Additional time extensions up to two (2) years as determined and approved by the commission may be granted. With all extensions, the director or commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of this chapter. B. PUBLIC WORKS httgs://weblink.meridiancity.oEgdf ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=311132&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU C. FIRE DEPARTMENT No comments were submitted. D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=311186&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City E. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancitE.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=310444&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU F. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=309567&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity G. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=308760&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity H. VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT(VRT) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=308788&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity I. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=308790&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity X. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use Permit(UDC 11-511-6E) The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit requests upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the R-40 zoning district if the Applicant complies with the conditions in Section IX(see Analysis, Section Vfor more information). Page 21 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Stafffinds that the proposed use is generally consistent with the future land use map designation of MU-C and is allowed as a conditional use in UDC Table 11-2A-2 in the R-40 zoning district and with the existing development agreement. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Stafffinds the proposed design of the development, construction, operation and maintenance should be compatible with the mix of other uses planned for and existing in this area and with the intended character of the area and that such uses will not adversely change the character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Stafffinds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use should not adversely affect other property in the area. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways,streets,schools,parks,police and fire protection,drainage structures,refuse disposal,water, and sewer. Staff finds that essential public services are available to this property and that the use will be adequately served by these facilities. Comments were not received from the school district on this application. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Stafffinds the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes,glare or odors. Stafffinds the proposed residential use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Stafffinds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feather of importance. Page 22 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Chik-Fil-A at Ten Mile (H-2023-0054) by 4G Development and Consulting, Inc., located at 501, 567 and 609 S. Innovation Ln. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0054 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a new approximate 5,872 foot Chik-fil-A restaurant including a dual drive-thru, full fire escape lane, and two exterior drive-thru canopies located within 300 feet of an existing drive-through facility, residential district, and existing residence on approximately 2.36 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: November 16, 2023 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 3 PROJECT NAME: Chik-Fil-A at Ten Mile (H-2023-0054) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide. HOA name 1 ' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING November 16, 2023 Legend -►� DATE: r Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Stacy Hersh,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: Chick-fil-A at Ten Mile CUP H-2023-0054 LOCATION: 501, 567,and 609 S.Innovation Lane in the W 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of SectionI 14, Township 3N.,Range 1W. (Parcel #R8483120120,R8483120040, ' R8483120060) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional Use Permit request for a new approximate 5,872-square foot Chick-fil-A including a dual drive- thru,full fire escape lane,and two exterior drive-thru canopies located within 300 feet of an existing drive- through facility,residential district, and existing residence, on approximately 2.36 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 2.36 acres(Conditional Use Permit) Future Land Use Designation Commercial Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped Proposed Land Use(s) Chick-fil-A(restaurant with a drive-through) Current Zoning C-G Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 6/30/2023 attendees: Description Details Page History(previous approvals) H-2020-0074 MDA, PP,RZ(DA#2021-089157);FP-2022- 0009;PS A-2022-0188. Pagel B. Community Metrics Description Details Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action (yes/no) Traffic Impact Study No es/no Access Access is proposed from S.Innovation Lane(private street)via S.Vanguard Way at the (Arterial/Collectors/State South boundary of the site. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend 0 Legend .. Project Location Project Location . � High`D'ensity Residential MU-Res ommercial � -_ i MU-Com Med-High' Density — Residential High Density r- -- `. Employment -MU'N~ Mined Employment- - } �� Page 2 Zoning Map Planned Development Map Li Legend 0 Legend - 0 FOProject Location RUT Project Location C-C City Limits C-G R-40 C-G —Planned Parcels " '" R-40 R-40 RUT C-G TN-C TN-C TN-R R-15 C-C C=G R-8 M-E C-C H-E H-E R1 '0 0 0 ❑ o R1 M-E RUT III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Kevin Watson,4G Development and Consulting,Inc.—P.O. Box 270571, San Diego, CA 92198 B. Owner: Sabrina Wright,Chick-fil-A— 105 Progress, Irvine, CA 92198 C. Agent/Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning Posting Date Newspaper Notification Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 10/27/2023 Public hearing notice sign posted 11/6/2023 on site Nextdoor posting 10/27/2023 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN(HTTPS://WWW.MERIDIANCITY.ORGICOMPPLAI�: Land Use: This property is designated Commercial within the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The purpose of the Commerical designation will provide a full range of commercial uses to serve area residents and visitors. Desired uses may include retail,restaurants,personal and professional services, and office uses,as well as appropriate public and quasi-public uses. Multi-family residential may be Page 3 allowed in some cases,but should be careful to promote a high quality of life through thoughtful site design, connectivity, and amenities. The subject site is one of multiple commercially zoned and designated properties that surround the intersection of Ten Mile, Franklin, and the I-84 Interchange. There is a multitude of commercial uses existing and under construction with more to come as this area continues to develop. The proposed use of a restaurant with a drive-through is a desired use outlined within the Commercial designation in the Comprehensive Plan, as noted above. The proposed use, in conjunction with the already approved or constructed uses, satisfies the general Commercial future land use designation for this area. Stafffinds the proposed project is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES(https://www.meridiancity.or /comp-plan): Goals,Objectives, &Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands and along streets."(2.01.04B) All parking lot landscaping is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. • "Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City."(3.01.01F) City water and sewer service stubs have been provided to this site with the development of the subdivision. • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Area of City Impact."(3.05.01J) The proposed drive-through restaurant will contribute to the variety of uses and fast food options in the Ten Mile Interchange Area of the City. • "Require pedestrian circulation plans to ensure safety and convenient access across large commercial and mixed-use developments."(3.07.02A). A 10 foot wide pathway is proposed to be constructed within the buffer area along the entire frontage of S. Ten Mile Road, as part of the final plat site improvements approved for TM Center Subdivision No. 1. Additionally, the Applicant is proposing a 5-foot wide pedestrian walkway extending from the main sidewalk along S. Vanguard Way located on the southern boundary of the site. The pedestrian facility provides a connection passing through the drive-through lanes to the front entrance of the building. • "Minimize noise, lighting,and odor disturbances from commercial developments to residential dwellings by enforcing city code."(5.01.01F) Operation of the proposed use should comply with City ordinances pertaining to noise, lighting, and odor disturbances. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(CUP) Conditional use permit for a new 5,872-square foot Chick-fil-A restaurant including a dual drive-thru, full fire escape lane, and two exterior drive-thru canopies on approximately 2.36 acres of land in the C-G zoning district to allow the requested drive-through use within 300 feet of another drive-through facility, residential district, and existing residence. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3): Page 4 The proposed use is subject to the following standards: (Staffs analysis/comments in italic text) Drive-Through Establishment: The proposed drive-through establishment is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11, Drive-Through Establishment. All establishments providing drive- through service are required to identify the stacking lane,menu, and speaker location(if applicable), and window location on the site plan. The site plan is also required to demonstrate safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the site and between adjacent properties. At a minimum,the plan is required to demonstrate compliance with the following standards:Staff recommends signage be installed ahead of each crossing warning drivers to watch out for pedestrians(north &South). Staff finds that the parking stalls to the north or south should be restricted for employee parking only to maximize pedestrian safety. Additionally,Staff recommends that the Applicant incorporate a pedestrian walkway from the easternmost parking area, through the middle of the parking lot, leading to the front of the building to facilitate safe pedestrian access (see figure below). O O L it ... s � MM ii i u i� AL( U w o _ ( "" _ I FSFW 05595 - .-_ `�� I~ r ow- 1) Stacking lanes have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of driveways, drive aisles, and the public right-of-way by patrons; The proposed site layout for the restaurant includes a dual drive-through lane with space to queue 37 vehicles and a third fire escape lane provided on the outside of the entire length of the drive-through. The drive-through itself starts at the north side of the building and exits at the south side,facing S. Innovation Lane. However, Staff has some safety concerns regarding the entry to the drive-through from the north.At the entrance of the drive-through, vehicles will be entering/exiting the drive-through while vehicles are attempting to park or back out of the parking stalls along the northern boundary. Staff recommends that the entry/exit on the north should be designated as"entrance only"for the drive- through to clearly mark and direct traffic flow. Further, staff recommends that the Applicant install additional signage andparking lot striping to clearly mark and guide traffic safely throughout the site. Chick-fil-A operations utilize a drive-through system featuring a door with a built-in pickup window. Additionally, employees serve customers as food runners within designated areas in or around the drive- through lanes. Customers have multiple options for placing orders in the drive-through. They can Page 5 either use digital menu boards with speakers or directly engage with employees equipped with handheld computer pads and portable receipt printers. Employees are equipped to take all methods of payment in the drive-through area. Once the order is placed using one of the above methods, the customer will proceed to move forward in the queue approaching the order pick-up area at the end of the drive- through. At this point, an employee will then hand or a runner will deliver the customer their order to their vehicle and direct cars safely through the drive-through exit. 2)The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking, except stacking lanes may provide access to designated employee parking. The stacking lanes are separate lanes from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking. 3)The stacking lane shall not be located within ten(10) feet of any residential district or existing residence; The stacking lane is not located within 10'of any residential district or residence. 4)Any stacking lane greater than one hundred(100) feet in length shall provide for an escape lane; and The stacking lane exceeds 100'in length and an escape lane is required. An escape lane is proposed at the entrance on the northwest side of the building(see site plan). 5)The site should be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street for surveillance purposes. The drive-through is located starting on the north side of the building and ending on the south side of the building. The drive-through is visible from S. Ten Mile Road along the west side of the building for surveillance purposes. Based on the above analysis, Staff deems the proposed drive-through is in compliance with the specific use standards as required. Restaurant: The proposed use is also subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-49 Restaurant,which requires at a minimum,one(1)parking space to be provided for every 250 square feet of gross floor area(see parking analysis below). The proposed restaurant will include 90 indoor seats and 32 patio seats to accommodate customers. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Development of the site shall comply with the dimensional standards of the C-G zoning district in UDC Table 11-2B-3. Staff has reviewed the proposed plans and building elevations and they comply with the required standards. The building is currently located on multiple property lines. Staff recommends that the Applicant submit a property boundary adjustment to combine all three properties into one property (parcels#R8483120120,R8483120040,R8483120060)prior to submitting for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC). Access(UDC 11-3A-3): The site plan includes three access points from S. Innovation Lane, a private street located on the eastern side og the property. Vehicles accessing the site can do so from the northeast, east, or southeast and have the option to park in the lot in front of building or proceed northwest to one of the first two inner 10'drive- through lanes. These lanes are equipped with menu boards for ordering and allow for exiting back to the drive aisle in the southeast direction. The third lane,farthest from the building, serves as an escape lane, leading to the drive aisle along the south side of the building. To improve traffic flow and minimize confusion, it is recommended that the first entrance%xit at the NEC should be an "entrance only"as mentioned previouslyNote: While Staff recommends approval of three drive-through lanes for this project to accommodate the volume of business that Chick-fil-A generates, Commission ultimately has the authority to determine whether it is appropriate for this project. Page 6 Parking(UDC 11-3C): A minimum of one(1) off-street parking space is required per 250 square feet(s.f.) of gross floor area. Based on the 5,872-square-foot restaurant, a minimum of 23 parking spaces are required. A total of 97 parking spaces are proposed, exceeding UDC standards. A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space must be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C.Bicycle parking is shown on the plans submitted with this application that meet the requirements. A detail of the bicycle racks shall be provided on the landscape plan submitted with the future Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review Application. Pedestrian Walkways(UDC 11-3A-19): The proposed plan includes a pedestrian walkway from the main walkway along S. Vanguard Way connecting to the south side of the building across the drive-through lanes. Where pedestrian walkways cross vehicular driving surfaces,they're required to be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4. The site/landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should reflect compliance with this standard—the proposed striping of the crosswalk is not an approved material and should be revised to comply with this standard Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): Street buffer: The street buffer along S. Ten Mile Road and S. Vanguard Way was constructed with the improvements for the Ten Mile Creek Subdivision No. 1 for the common area site improvements. The buffer along S. Ten Mile Road is required to be 35 feet wide as part of the entryway corridor in accordance with UDC 11-3B-7C.f. The buffer appears to be 35 feet in width, which includes the 10 foot wide pathway and the additional street buffer that was constructed with the subdivision improvements.Moreover, the landscape plan is missing the planting detail and the landscape calculations table. Staff recommends that the Applicant depict the 35 foot wide landscape buffer,planting detail, and calculation table on the plans submitted with the CZC application. Parking lot: Landscaping is required in the parking lot per the standards in UDC 11-313-8C.1. Each interior planter that serves a single row of parking spaces shall be landscaped with at least one (1)tree and shall be covered with low shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative ground cover. Each interior planter that serves a double row of parking spaces shall have at least two (2)trees and shall be covered with low shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative ground cover. Trees shall be centered within the planters and provide urban canopy. Deciduous urban canopy trees shall be pruned to a minimum height of eight(8) feet above the adjacent parking areas. Evergreen trees and class III trees are prohibited in interior planters. Several planters within the parking lot that are missing trees and a planter is missing adjacent to the trash enclosure. Additionally,it appears that a section of the central landscape island that runs along Innovation Lane does not look to meet the 5- foot width requirement. Staff recommends increaseing the size of the planter island adjacent to Innovation Lane by removing a parking stall and adding the required trees in accordance with UDC H- 3B-8. As part of the CZC submittal for the building, the Applicant should address the absence of the required trees(approximately 4 trees)from the planters. furthermore, an additional planter should be added adjacent to the trash enclosure in accordance with UDC 11-3B-8(see figure below). Page 7 --------CAA UMITo-WC=-. — — � F RR 8A889a Z - I" s.0 • •1 S VA'.G'JARD Vi.y Outdoor Lighting(UDC 11-3A-11): All outdoor lighting is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-I IC. Light fixtures that have a maximum output of 1,800 lumens or more are required to have an opaque top to prevent up-lighting; the bulb shall not be visible and shall have a full cutoff shield in accord with Figure 1 in UDC 11-3A-11C. Details of the lighting were provided that demonstrate compliance with the standards listed in UDC H- 3A-11. Mechanical Equipment(UDC 11-3A-12): All mechanical equipment on the back of the building and outdoor service and equipment should be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. If mechanical equipment is proposed to be roof-mount, all equipment should be screened and out of view as noted above. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed structure as shown in Section VII.C. Building materials consist of stucco,parapet metal wall coping,thin brick,metal awnings, and glazing. The proposed conceptual elevations are not approved.The conceptual elevations should incorporate a more pronounced parapet change to enhance the design on the west-facing side along S. Ten Mile Road,in contrast to the current proposal. Final design is required to comply with the adopted TM Crossing Design Guidelines. Page 8 Certificate of Zoning Compliance(UDC 11-5B-1): A Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) is required to be submitted for approval of the site and building design prior to submittal of building permit applications. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit per the provisions included in Section IX in accord with the Findings in Section X. Page 9 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan(date: 9/27/2023) �' T� L L � `I1`IL PRO.IECTYICIMRY WP >,��.sw� sITE sd- 7 g w— I hi .—K T Y -41 q - FSRN 05545 "art J Nlz ---------- < ----- --- ---ff;� Page 10 B. Lanscape Plan(date: 9/25/23) .,. ter- • roea�w..... +�-•'--�-w4. sum... ` - �-�=� ;,.,.. ti Lq— u�.1111.1w T! — r - pp 11 11 aa- - o000 law �irA4 - i .i.wrw r+orea FSRSOS646 1 '4itI�tA1y17+IlYC�dt�•'�^� !tl1 - 3 IMwc � L7.p i Page 11 C. Chick-fil-A Proposed Elevations m ;y� 04—. CORE STATES _ LL a >s FSL905545 _.-.. e - �� rtA•301C Page 12 IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION Conditional Use Permit: 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the previous conditions of approval and terms of the existing Development Agreement and the conditions contained herein[H-2020-0074 MDA. PP. RZ(DA#2021-089157);FP-2022-0009;PS A-2022-01881. 2. The site landscape plans shall be revised as follows: a. All mechanical equipment on the back of the building and outdoor service and equipment areas should be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. b. Additional signage and parking lot striping is required throughout the site to efficiently and adequately direct patrons to the menu boards and throughout the site with minimal conflict. c. The entry/exit on the north side of the site shall be designated as"entrance only"for the drive- through to provide clear direction and control traffic flow. d. Add an additional planter adjacent to the trash enclosure in accordance with UDC 11-3B-8 e. Revise the section of the central landscape island that runs along Innovation Lane to meet the 5- foot width requirement in accordance with UDC 11-313-8. e. Depict the 35-foot wide landscape buffer,planting detail, and tree calculation table on the plans submitted with the CZC application in accordance with I I-3B-7. f. Revise the plans to expand the size of the planter island adjacent to Innovation Lane by removing a parking stall and adding the required trees, including the required trees missing form the parking lot planters in accordance with UDC 11-3B-8. g. Incorporate a pedestrian walkway from the easternmost parking area,through the middle of the parking lot,leading to the front of the building to facilitate safe pedestrian access. The pedestrian walkways from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers,colored or scored concrete, or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-1913.4b. 3. The existing landscaping buffers along S. Ten Mile Road and S. Vanguard Way remain in place and shall be protected during construction on the site per UDC 11-3B-10. 4. Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-I1—Drive-Through Establishment and standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-49—Restaurant is required. 5. Direct access via S. Ten Mile Road is prohibited. 6. Submit a property boundary adjustment to combine all three properties into one property(parcels #R8483120120,R8483120040,R8483120060)prior to submitting for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC). 7. The conceptual elevations shall incorporate a more pronounced parapet change to enhance the design on the west-facing side along S. Ten Mile Road,in contrast to the current proposal. Final design is required to comply with the adopted TM Crossing Design Guidelines. Page 13 8. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. Compliance with the TM Crossing Design Guidelines are required. 9. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6. A time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. B. PUBLIC WORKS https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=309068&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity C. FIRE DEPARTMENT A full fire plan review will be required to be completed prio to construction. D. POLICE DEPARTMENT No comments were submitted. E. IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=309566&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) No comments were submitted. G. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.ore/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=310947&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX H. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=309479&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity X. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use Permit(UDC 11-5B-6E) The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit requests upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the C-G district(see Analysis, Section VI for more information). 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Stafffinds the proposed restaurant with a drive-through will be harmonious with the uses allowed in the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section IX of this report. Page 14 3. That the design,construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use will be be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Stafffinds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Stafffinds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Stafffinds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Stafffinds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005). Stafffinds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. Page 15 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation K I TT E LS O N 101 South Capitol Boulevard , Suite 600 /� /� Boise , ID 83702 1 & A S S O C I A T E S P 208 .338 ,2683 November 14, 2023 Project # : 29858 To Whom It May Concern City of Meridian - Community Development Department 33 E Broadway Avenue , Suite # 102 Meridian , Idaho 83642 RE : Site Circulation for Chicl<AkA at Ten Mile CUP ( Meridian Project H -2023-0054 ) Dear Planning & Zoning Commissioners and Community Development Staff: We reviewed the proposed Chick-fil-A site plan proposed for construction at 602 S Vanguard Way as well as the corresponding Meridian Community Development Department Staff Report dated November 16 , 2023 , The proposed site plan includes three full movement driveways proposed along Innovation Lane . This letter offers additional information in support of operating the north site access as a two-way facility. RACKGRO1 .11MIll Chick4lkA is proposing a new approximately 5, 872 square foot restaurant with two drive through lanes plus a third drive through bypass lane . The drive through circulation is oriented counterclockwise with the pickup area located on the south side of the building . Drive through traffic is primarily expected to enter the north access and exit the south access with on -site parking available via all three access driveways on Innovation Lane . Chick-fikA employees are expected to park along the north side of the site in the 15 head -in parking spaces provided between the trash enclosure on the west side of the parking lot and Innovation Drive to the east . Employees may also park along the south drive aisle using the head -in spaces as needed . Because the employees start and end their workday outside peak demand periods, the turnover of the 15 northern parking spaces is expected to be limited ( one entry movement per space at the shift start and one exit movement per space at shift end ) and is anticipated to occur during non-peak periods . In addition , a 24-foot-wide fire lane is designated between the northernmost and southernmost accesses . The November 16 Meridian staff report recommends that the proposed north entry/exit be designated as " entrance only" for the drive-through to clearly mark and direct traffic flow . The staff recommendation to configure one -way entrance only operations appears predicated on the following considerations cited in the staff report : However, Staff has some safety concerns regarding the entry to the drive - through from the north . At the entrance of the drive- through, vehicles will be entering/exiting the drive -through while vehicles are attempting to park or back out of the parking stalls along the northern boundary. SUMMARY REVIEW Having reviewed the staff report and understanding that the 15 parking stalls located along the north side of the northern access are intended for employee use , we believe maintaining two -way operation at the north access Is appropriate for the following reasons : The parking spaces located along the north side of the drive aisle are expected to be used by employees and thus are unlikely to turnover and interact with inbound drive-through trips during peak drive -through operations . Kittelson & Associates, Inc . Project # : 29858 Site Circulation for ChickAkA at Ten Mlle CUP (Meridian Project H -2023-0054) Configuring the north access to one -way entry only operations could be confusing to restaurant visitors/patrons . For example , it could be challenging to effectively sign , stripe and enforce one -way operations on-site , particularly restricting no-right-turn movements northbound in the three north-south drive aisles . Mistaken on -site northbound right-turn movements that lead to potential wrong -way movements have the potential to pose their own challenges in an entry-only site configuration . Compared to two -way operations , a relatively wide ( 25400t ) one -way inbound drive aisle along the north access could result in higher site entry and circulation speeds as customers move to the drive " through area . The north access and drive aisle is designated as a 24400t fire lane . As such , configuring the north access to one -way entry only operations could be an impediment to emergency responders . Additionally , reducing the north drive aisle to less than 244eet to accommodate a one -way configuration may not meet fire lane minimum width requirements . Continuous two-way circulation on -site between the south site access and the north site access allows Chicl<AkA more flexibility to facilitate restaurant food deliveries and refuse removal compared to one-way only circulation from the north access towards the south access . In summary, we support two -way operation of the north access for the reasons cited above . Please let us know if you have questions or if you would like to further discuss . Sincerely, KITTELSON ASSOCIATES, INC . Chase Fuquay, PE Chris Brehmer, PE Engineer Senior Principal Engineer Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page : 2 of 2 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Crowley Park Subdivision (H-2023-0053) by Riley Planning Services, located at 4135 W. Cherry Ln. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0053 A. Request: Annexation of 1.002 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district.B. Request: Combined Preliminary/Final Plat consisting of 4 residential building lots and 1 common lot (including one existing home to remain). PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: November 16, 2023 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 4 j PROJECT NAME: Crowley Park Subdivision (H-2023-0053) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 1 �S Uj I Q� -9 3 3 P° t10, L, a- 6owr-696/6 0X ro7 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT C�W IDIAN�-- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I D A H O HEARING November 16,2023 Legend DATE: Project Location 0 TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Stacy Hersh,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 ��o E SUBJECT: Crowley Park Subdivision lin " 0 u H-2023-0053 TTTn � f LOCATION: 4135 W. Cherry Lane in the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10, Township 3N,Range 1 W(Parcel #51210212465) mom I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation of 1.002 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district,Preliminary Plat consisting of 4 residential building lots(including one existing home to remain) and one(1)common lot(including one home to remain)for Crowley Park Subdivision. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details ` Page Acreage 1.002 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential(MDR) Existing Land Use Single-family residential(SFR)/ag Proposed Land Use(s) Single-Family attached residential Current Zoning Single-Family residential zone(Rl)in Ada County Proposed Zoning R-8(Medium Density Residential) Lots(#and type;bldg/common) 4 buildings(including 1 existing lo0/1 common Phasing plan(#of phases) 1 Number of Residential Units(type 4 single-family attached units and 1 existing home of units) Density(gross&net) 3.99 units/acre(gross) Open Space(acres,total [%]/ 0%,not required for developments under 5 acres buffer/qualified) Pagel Amenities None Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date 8/3/2023 History(previous approvals) None B. Community Metrics Description I Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report Yes (yes/no) • Requires No ACHD Commission Action es/no • Existing 1. Right-of-Way—Cherry Lane Conditions a. Existing Conditions: Cherry Lane is improved with 5-travel lanes, on-street bike lanes,vertical curb,gutter,and 7-foot wide attached concrete sidewalk abutting the site.There is 90-feet of right-of-way for Cherry Lane(45-feet from centerline). • CIP/IFYWP C.Traffic Information Trip Generation This development is estimated to generate 29 additional vehicle trips per day(10 existing); and 2 additional vehicle trips per hour in the PM peak hour(1 existing),based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual,11"edition. Condition of Area Roadways:Traffic Count is based on Vehicles per hour(VPH) Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service Cherry Lane 126-feet I Principal Arterial 704 Better Than"E" *Acceptable level of service for a five-lane principal arterial is"E"(1,780 VPH). Average Daily Traffic Count(VDT): Average daily traffic counts are based on ACHD's most current traffic counts. • The average daily traffic count for Cherry Lane west of Ten Mile Road was 14,642 on March 20,2019. Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Cherry Lane is classified as a principal arterial roadway. Other than the Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) access specifically approved with this application off of W.Cherry Lane, direct lot access is prohibited to this roadway and should be noted on the final plat. Proposed Road Improvements None Fire Service No comments received Police Service No comments received. West Ada School District No comments received. Distance(elem,ms,hs) Capacity of Schools #of Students Enrolled Wastewater Page 2 • Distance to Sewer Services Directly adjacent • Sewer Shed North Black Cat • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's 19 WRRF Declining Balance • Project Consistent with WW Yes Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works' Site-Specific Conditions in Section B. Water • Distance to Services Water available at site. • Pressure Zone 2 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works' Site-Specific Conditions in Section B. C. Project Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend Legend Project Location Project Location ZU �,w Z'ed`iqml CHERRY--L• , _.W_CHERRY L�,LJI LLJ nsity z- ® r. Z Residential -THORN vN _ CaEEK ST EX 6R W BQLJE �pR W BIG SEEK,DR pgRKCRF� Page 3 Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend 0 Legend Project Location \ Project Location Y City Limits Planned Parcels , W'CHERRY=L• Hill W'CHERRY=L• R2 z Hill ILI III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Penelope Riley,Riley Planning Services LLC—P.O.Box 405,Boise,ID 83701 B. Owner: Luke Gilbert, Gilbert RE Holdings,LLC— 1065 S. Allante Place,Boise,ID 83709 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published in newspaper 10/31/2023 Radius notification mailed to property owners within 500 feet 10/27/2023 Public hearing notice sign posted 11/6/2023 on site Nextdoor posting 10/27/2023 Page 4 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS LAND USE: This property is designated as Medium Density Residential(MDR) on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. The subject 1.002-acre property currently contains an existing home and is an enclave surrounded by existing single-family residential homes. The subject site abuts an R-8 development to the west and south, Cherrywood Village Subdivision;to the east is an R-4 development, Rods Parkside Creek Subdivision; and to the north are two R-4 developments, Golf View Estates Subdivision and Cherry Lane Village Subdivision. The subject property is designated as Medium Density Residential on the future land use map consistent with the approved development to the west. The Applicant proposes a 4-lot subdivision for single-family residential detached homes and one existing single-family detached home at a gross density of 3.99 units per acre,which is within the desired density range of the MDR designation. Goals,Objectives,&Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) The proposed single-family detached dwellings and one existing single-family detached dwelling with a mix of lot sizes will contribute to the variety of housing options in this area and within the City as desired. Existing single-family attached and detached dwellings are in the Medium-Density Residential development to the west and south and existing Medium Low-Density Residential developments consisting of detached dwellings are located within the surrounding area. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City." (2.01.01G) This area consists primarily of single family detached homes with some single-family attached homes located to the west; only single-family detached homes and one existing single-family detached home are proposed within this development. The proposed development offers lot sizes ranging from 5,148 to 9,210 square feet(sf.)with the existing home on a 9,524 sf. lot. • "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices."(3.07.01A) The proposed medium-density residential single-family detached homes contribute to the variety of residential categories within the surrounding area as desired. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed site design provides maximum use of the land with the proposed residential dwelling types and should be compatible with the existing developments on adjacent properties that are also designated for MDR uses. • "Support infill development that does not negatively impact the abutting, existing development. Infill projects in downtown should develop at higher densities,irrespective of existing Page 5 development." (2.02.02C) The proposed development will not likely impact the existing abutting developments to the east, west, and south. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development."(3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems with development of the subdivision;services are required to be provided to and through this development in accord with current City plans. • "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D) A 7-foot-wide existing pedestrian sidewalk connection is located along W. Cherry Lane. The existing sidewalk provides a link between all subdivisions east and west of this site. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter, and sidewalks are required to be provided with development of the subdivision. • "Eliminate existing private treatment and septic systems on properties annexed into the City and instead connect users to the City wastewater system; discourage the prolonged use of private treatment septic systems for enclave properties." If annexed, the existing home will be required to abandon the existing septic system and connect to the City wastewater system. • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02) Development of the subject infill parcel will maximize public services. Based on the analysis above, staff finds the proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. ANNEXATION(AZ) The Applicant proposes to annex 1.002 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in Section VIII.A. This property is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary. A preliminary plat and conceptual building elevations were submitted showing how the property is proposed to be subdivided and developed with 3 single-family residential detached dwelling units, I existing single-family detached dwelling unit, and 1 common lot at a gross density of 3.99 units per acre (see Sections VIII.C, E). The proposed use and density of the development are consistent with the MDR FLUM designation. Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-8 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. Future development is subject to the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. Page 6 There is an existing home on approximately a quarter of an acre adjacent to W. Cherry Lane. The property owner intends to annex and connect to City utilities with this development. The property is contiguous to City annexed land to the north and is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary. A legal description and exhibit map of the overall annexation area for the R-8 zoning districts are included in Section VIII.A. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. If this property is annexed, Staff recommends a DA is required with the provisions discussed herein and included in Section IX.A. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT(PP): The proposed preliminary plat consists of 4 building lots and 1 common lot on 1.002-acre property in the proposed R-8 zoning district. Proposed lots range in size from 5,148 to 9,524 square feet(s.f.)(or 0.12 to 0.22 acres). The proposed gross density of the subdivision is 3.99 units per acre. The subdivision is proposed to develop in one phase as shown in Section VIII.B. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: An existing home on the property is proposed to remain on Lot 2,Block 1. The outbuildings located on Lots 1 and 3, Block 1 should be removed with development of this property. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat, all existing structures that do not conform to the setbacks of the district are required to be removed. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table I1-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. The proposed plat appears to comply with the dimensional standards of the district, except for the front porch on the existing home which encroaches more than two feet into the required setback (see landscape buffers below for analysis). Per UDC 11-2A-3B.3, lots taking access from a common drive do not require street frontage. Access: Access is proposed from W. Cherry Lane from a common driveway on Lot 1,Block 1. Direct lot access from W. Cherry Lane for Lot 2,Block 1 is prohibited. The interior Lots 3,4, 5, Block 1 are proposed to take access via a common drive to W. Cherry Lane,meeting the street access requirements of UDC 11-3A-3A. Common Driveways (UDC 11-6C-3D): Common driveways shall serve a maximum of four(4) dwelling units. In no case shall more than three (3) dwelling units be located on one(1) side of the driveway. The Applicant is proposing four(4) dwelling units take access off the main common driveway,all four(4) dwelling units are also located on one(1) side of the driveway. However,three(3) dwelling units are taking access via a side common drive that connects to the main common drive. The Director has determined that the proposed orientation of the dwelling units off the side common drive meets the intent of the UDC code. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Staff will confirm compliance with these standards at the time of building permit submittal for each residence. The Applicant has provided an additional three(3)parking stalls at the end of the common drive on the southeast side of the site for overflow parking. The existing home does not meet the required number of off-street parking spaces per UDC Table 11-3C-6 for a three(3)bedroom home; four(4)parking spaces are required,at least 2 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10-foot by 20- foot parking pad. The existing home does not have an enclosed two-car garage;however,the required number of parking spaces is provided via an existing carport and driveway. The carport shares a roofline with the existing home and is currently accessed from the west; access to the carport will change to the south upon approval and completion of the subdivision Page 7 site improvements once the entry point to the carport is shifted to the south and the common drive is constructed. The Applicant is also proposing to add a fence to provide additional screening of the carport from W. Cherry Lane. The existing home is recognized as non- conforming due to the off-street parking requirements in UDC 11-3C-6. Per UDC 11-IB-4, no existing structure containing a nonconforming use may be enlarged, extended, constructed, reconstructed, moved, or structurally altered except through the approval of a conditional use permit. As a result of the non-conformity,the Applicant is required to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for any future expansions on the property. ,1M 1 11 jo Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A twenty-five foot landscape buffer is required along W. Cherry Lane in accord with UDC 11-3B-7. The landscape plan submitted depicts a 20-foot landscape buffer along W. Cherry Lane that includes four(4) existing trees. The Applicant has proposed a water-conserving design aimed to reduce the required landscape buffer to 20 feet in width. However, the proposed design lacks features like boulders, rocks, and/or permeable hardscape materials such as pavers and flagstones, and water conserving grasses. The design should incorporate plants and trees that thrive in climates with approximately ten (1) to twelve(12) inches of annual rainfall. Staff recommends that the Applicant revise the landscape plan to comply with the requirements for a water-conserving design in accordance with UDC 11-3B-5.2.0). Sidewalks(11-3A-17): Cherry Lane is improved with an existing 7-foot wide attached concrete sidewalk abutting the site in accord with UDC standards. Staff is not recommending that this sidewalk be replaced with and 7-foot detached sidewalk. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. The existing home proposed to remain on Lot 1,Block 1 is required to connect to City water and sewer service within 60 days of it becoming available as set forth in MCC 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, I1-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. The Applicant is proposing fencing in front of the carport for screening provided there is not a conflict with the proposed layout of the fire hydrant service line. A detail of the fencing should be provided with the final plat. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided to each lot within the subdivision as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. Given that the Page 8 property possesses irrigation rights and access, surface water rights should be used as the primary source over the groundwater well in accordance with the regulations of Settlers Irrigation District. Settlers Irrigation District does not permit the exclusion of water rights to the subject parcel. Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-18):An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances.Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. Building Elevations: Three (3)conceptual building elevations were submitted that demonstrate what future homes in this development will look like(see Section VIII.E).Variations of one-story homes with a three-car garage are proposed. The submitted elevations depict a number of different architectural and design styles with field materials of lap siding,differing color accents,roof profiles, and stone. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation with the requirement of a Development Agreement, and preliminary plat per the provisions in Section IX in accord with the Findings in Section X. Page 9 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit Map DAVID FVANS , mr,ASSOCI.A-I't=S roc=. AFNEXATION BOUNDARY DERIFTiON The follcwing Describes a Parcel of Land lying in a portion of the NW 114 of Section 10, Township 3 North.. Range 1 West., Boise Meridian,Oily of Meridian,Ada County Idaho being rnQF0 particularly desch bad as Folkwe., COMMENCING at the Northwest Comer of said Section 10 which is being Monumenled with a found W Iron pin anti,'No Cap': From which,the North 114 Corner of said Section 10 which is being Monumented with.a found Brass Cap bears, South W1631'East,2645,04 feet;Thence along the Northerly Boundary Line of the NW 114 of said Section 10.South OVI5'31"East.2195.88 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence contlouing, South 8r15'34'Fast, 124.22 feel; Thence leaving said Northerly Boundary Line.South 00°04'22'East, 386.74 feat to a Found W8`Iron Pin-PLS 4116"; Thence. North 88°2T57"West, 130-98 foal to a found 5M"Iron Pin'PL5 4116", Thence, North 00°5S'39`East, 384.74 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Tho above Described Parcal of Land contains I A 3 Acrmg(4S,213 Sq. FL). more or less. L?211 Page 10 ANNEXATION EXHIBIT A PORTION OF THE NW 114 OF SECTION 10,TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST_ BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN,ApA COUNTY, IDAHO 2023 BASIS of BEAM& S99.1511T 2645.dd' B Py+u 2195.$$' a TUS 5291' I Q 34' w '2rl I I � I � tl 5 -21 I � I y I I Ua I im I I m LS -111-2x53'1M 130.68' ' 4116' 411S- i Cho age � � � Snhdi�iiSam Q. 8251 D"ID EVANS ANo ASS 0CIATES mc� ' +5 9179 W. BLACK[EAGLE DR. Bolso Idaho Phone: 208-900-9D49 Page 11 B. Preliminary Plat Legal Description and Exhibit Map IQ DA ID EVANS ASSQ C IATES ANNEXATION BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION The following Describes a Parcel of Land lying in a portion of the NW 1A of Section 10, Tmmship 3 North.. Range 1 West., Boise Meridian.City of Meridian.Ada County Idaho being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the Northwest Gorner of said Section 14 which is being Mon umented with a found 5W Iron pin with"No Gap',From which,the North 114 Corner of said Section 10 whir;h is being Monumented with a found grass Cap bpar5, South 8991631" East, 2645.04 feel; Thence along the Northerly Boundary Line of the NW 114 of said Section 10,South 89°1 F31' East,2195.88 feat to the POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence continuing, South 89°15'34°East, 124.22 feel; Thence leaving said Northerly Boundary Line,South 40'04'22" East,386.74 reel to a Found W8" Iron Pin"PLS 4116"; Thence.North W2T57'West, 130.98 feet to afound 5ff Iran PIrr"PLS 4116°; Thence,North 000551T East,384.74 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING: The above Described Parcel of Land contains 1,13 Acres(49,213 Sq.Ft.), more or less. S ;rA- Page 12 ANNEXATION EXHIBIT A PORTION OF THE NW 114 OF SEOTiON 10, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN. ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2023 OASIS OF BEARING: SE 1S31'F 2645.04' 3 A W.Ch6r1y Lane, _ _n _ 99'15'31'E f2d.22' 4 6 'Nu1iI.FF — r ad 334.E N 114 Comer v -PL$5291- c� I Q' 3u bQ 120' I 1 I I � 0 4={ I �r S1 w e,� ate, I I g I I x LS N6'267'Vp 134.98'L kAft -PLS 4116' 411$` R1rrCk ] ,; Eat {�E 'S[ Cherrymaad Village ` Smbdisiedon 2I2/1 i } a_ 8251 DA I D EV AN #� oF� AwiDAS it CIATE" lhlc_ 9179 W_ BLACK EAGLE DR. Boise Who Phone: 208-900-9049 Page 13 C. Preliminary Plat(dated: 6/15/23) ----— —-- PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR =` CROWLEY PARK SUBDIVISION 1 ---------- ----- �w' A PARCEL OF LAND fACAP6D IN THE NR 114 OF THE NAY 1/4 OF SWTION IO, TEN, Ply. RM. CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COU TY.IDAHO2023 ! R17171-171 g: DBVBI.OPf1ERMTURM !.!I V7gN ymlox Low 0 _: °qq g �_ BRIMMUROD QI Page 14 D. Landscape Plan(dated: 9/15/23) �� '^ {�•ua�xuw rx�� ___` �Prue ruwrnc '- W � � — •�.. ... — L10D Page 15 E. Conceptual Building r;'•f'T TER NTAIN -4 Page AIM' mil{ INTERMOUNTAII ML5 F a5 _ x Ali 6 � -n - 11111 F. Existing Home NINE ONES 02 I NMI y Page 18 3 ;`✓l��y.sf �¢ - fir �� ;p r� �; ,� ,>i�, - r t '4 r r � �# � i� � 7.•1'yr "� f� t ¢. � �.-.g `'wr+.: �. - � Y u ,rr -� . y,�y,:- ��. _ "'may`.;• _.,; '� _ - ,.�_ Page 20 Existing House X. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance,a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum,incorporate the following provisions IF City Council determines annexation is in the best interest of the City: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat,landscape plan,and conceptual building elevations included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. b. The existing home on Lot 1,Block 1 shall be required to connect to City water and sewer service within 60 days of it becoming available and disconnect from private service, as set forth in MCC 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. c. As a result of the non-conformity to the existing home due to the off-street parking requirements in UDC 11-3C-6,the Applicant/Owner is required to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for any future expansions on the property. 2. The final plat prepared by Rock Solid Civil on June 15,2023 is approved as submitted. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Revise the landscape plan to depict a variety of lacks features like boulders,rocks, and/or permeable hardscape materials such as pavers and flagstones, and water conserving grasses to comply with the requirements for a water-conserving design in accordance with UDC 11-3B- 5.2.0. The design shall incorporate plants and trees that thrive in climates with approximately ten(1)to twelve (12)inches of annual rainfall. b. Depict a fencing detail for all new fencing proposed for the subject site. c. Mitigation shall be required for all existing trees four-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of one hundred(100)percent replacement per UDC 11-3B-1OC.5. 4. The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. 5. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat,all existing structures that do not conform to the setbacks of the R-8 zoning district shall be removed. 6. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 1I- 3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit, except for the existing residence on Lot 1,Block 1. 7. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 8. Direct lot access from W. Cherry Lane is prohibited. 10. The applicant and/or assigns shall have the continuing obligation to provide irrigation that meets the standards as set forth in UDC I I-3B-6 and to install and maintain all landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-3B-5,UDC 11-3B-13 and UDC 11-3B-14. Page 21 12. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1) obtain the City Engineer's signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or 20 obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-613-7. B. PUBLIC WORKS https://weblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=309527&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX C. FIRE DEPARTMENT No comments at this time. D. POLICE DEPARTMENT No comments at this time. E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT No comments at this time. F. SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=310450&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity&cr =1 https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=310529&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX G. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES(ACDS) https://weblink.meridiancio!.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=310572&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX H. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) No comments were received from WASD. I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=309946&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX J. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) https://weblink.meridiancio!.or,g/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=309599&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX K. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancitE.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=310013&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX XI. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone (UDC 11-511-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds the Applicant's request to annex the subject property with R-8 zoning and develop single- family attached dwellings on the site at a gross density of 3.99 units per acre is consistent with the Page 22 density desired in the MDR designation for this property; the preliminary plat and site design is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all conditions of approval are met. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed map amendment to R-8 and development generally complies with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that it will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available in the City consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; Staff finds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed residential uses should be compatible with adjacent single-family residential homes/uses in the area. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Staff finds City services are available to be provided to this development. Comments were not received from WASD on this application so Staff is unable to determine impacts to the school district. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the city if revisions are made to the development plan as recommended. B. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-613-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision- making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Staff finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Staff finds there are no roadways, bridges or intersections in the general vicinity that are in the IFYWP or the CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. Page 23 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Page 24